| 1 |
On Saturday, April 2, 2016 8:01:39 PM CEST, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, Apr 02, 2016 at 12:35:58PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 09:36:56PM +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On Friday, April 1, 2016 8:33:02 PM CEST, Mike Frysinger wrote: ... |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> No, it wouldn't. We made a decision in 2013 (I'll have to find it) that |
| 7 |
>> separate /usr should only be supported via initramfs; there is also a |
| 8 |
>> news item warning that if you are not using initramfs and you have |
| 9 |
>> separate /usr your system will be unbootable in the future. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Here are the latest council decision on the matter [1] and news item [2]. |
| 12 |
> At this point, if anyone who has split /usr isn't using initramfs, |
| 13 |
> they are operating on borrowed time. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Good then, thanks. I didn't remember this one and failed to see it when |
| 17 |
looking at council decisions. I assume there's nothing preventing disabling |
| 18 |
gen_usr_ldscript by default then. Apologies to Mike for being annoying on |
| 19 |
this one :) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I also assumed making eudev default was a step in having sep-usr work by |
| 22 |
default as the initial issue was brought up by udev, but that's flawed |
| 23 |
reversed logic. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> I would agree, since it has been so long, that we should do another news |
| 26 |
> item, but once the news item is done and we give a firm date, I think |
| 27 |
> we should just kill off gen_usr_ldscript. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Killing it is too violent IMHO: It doesn't provide much gain and makes it |
| 30 |
very annoying to get sep-usr working afterwards. I think current proposal |
| 31 |
to make it optional is the best option. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> The /usr merge is a separate issue, which I agree with as well, but that |
| 34 |
> was never brought to council, and it is controversial in the Gentoo camp |
| 35 |
> because some folks claim fhs doesn't allow it. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Getting a bit OT, but can you explain in what ways it violates fhs ? |
| 38 |
What worries me more about /usr merge is that I've never seen a plan for |
| 39 |
it. I think it'd be necessary to have portage gain some intra-package |
| 40 |
collision check (e.g. a package installing /bin/foo and /usr/bin/foo should |
| 41 |
be reported), which would then allow building /usr-merged stages, but the |
| 42 |
main issue for me is how to migrate installed systems properly. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
Alexis. |
Archives