| 1 |
On 04/22/2012 10:55 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 04/22/2012 05:28 AM, Steven J Long wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>>> | 3. New udev and separate /usr partition (30 minutes) |
| 6 |
>>> | |
| 7 |
>>> | See [4]: "Decide on whether a separate /usr is still a supported |
| 8 |
>>> | configuration. If it is, newer udev can not be stabled and |
| 9 |
>>> | alternatives should be investigated. If it isn't, a lot of |
| 10 |
>>> | documentation will have to be updated. (And an alternative should |
| 11 |
>>> | likely still be provided.)" |
| 12 |
>>> | |
| 13 |
>>> | [4] |
| 14 |
>>> | [<http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo- |
| 15 |
>> project/msg_c96d1b724cd736702820fa5ff1547557.xml> |
| 16 |
>>> |
| 17 |
>> From the first reply: |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
>> "To clarify, the question is whether or not we support a separate /usr |
| 20 |
>> _without_ mounting it early via an initramfs." |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
>> I hope that settles that particular issue. |
| 23 |
>> |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Hmm... I see that in Zac's reply, thanks for that. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> Unfortunately, from what I can tell, that clarification was not actually |
| 28 |
> part of the proposed agenda [5], nor was it directly referenced. So the |
| 29 |
> subject of the vote still seems open to interpretation. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Yeah, it almost seems as though the council was being intentionally |
| 32 |
vague and leaving things open to interpretation. In response, we had |
| 33 |
William post about the ">= udev-182 tracker" [1], to which Tony seemed |
| 34 |
to respond positively [2]. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
[1] |
| 37 |
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_015e73cfccbd72fa956a8bdbc2e9cdc0.xml |
| 38 |
[2] |
| 39 |
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_fb17ccaadc95c7f3f27d0613c13aa04e.xml |
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
Thanks, |
| 42 |
Zac |
Archives