| 1 |
On 04/22/2012 05:28 AM, Steven J Long wrote: |
| 2 |
> Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> | 3. New udev and separate /usr partition (30 minutes) |
| 5 |
>> | |
| 6 |
>> | See [4]: "Decide on whether a separate /usr is still a supported |
| 7 |
>> | configuration. If it is, newer udev can not be stabled and |
| 8 |
>> | alternatives should be investigated. If it isn't, a lot of |
| 9 |
>> | documentation will have to be updated. (And an alternative should |
| 10 |
>> | likely still be provided.)" |
| 11 |
>> | |
| 12 |
>> | [4] |
| 13 |
>> | [<http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo- |
| 14 |
> project/msg_c96d1b724cd736702820fa5ff1547557.xml> |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
> From the first reply: |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> "To clarify, the question is whether or not we support a separate /usr |
| 19 |
> _without_ mounting it early via an initramfs." |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> I hope that settles that particular issue. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Hmm... I see that in Zac's reply, thanks for that. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Unfortunately, from what I can tell, that clarification was not actually |
| 27 |
part of the proposed agenda [5], nor was it directly referenced. So the |
| 28 |
subject of the vote still seems open to interpretation. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Ultimately, the council's only "power" is to stop things from happening |
| 31 |
under threat of expulsion from the project. I think it would be a |
| 32 |
mistake for this particular council vote to be used as the sole |
| 33 |
justification for preventing devs from committing changes that would |
| 34 |
require an initramfs for separate /usr support. It simply does not seem |
| 35 |
clear enough for that. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
[5] |
| 38 |
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/msg_ac95bed78694852cd09f20a07437b805.xml |
Archives