| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 25/09/13 10:51 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> |
| 6 |
> wrote: |
| 7 |
>> William, I think what Tom was mentioning here is that he thinks |
| 8 |
>> a one-sentence answering the "Why" would be a good idea to have |
| 9 |
>> in the news item, so users that don't have a clue on all of these |
| 10 |
>> sep-/usr issues will get an idea of why the change is being |
| 11 |
>> made. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> How about something like: Due to many upstream changes properly |
| 14 |
> supporting a separate /usr without an initramfs has become |
| 15 |
> increasingly difficult - despite all our efforts it already breaks |
| 16 |
> in some exotic configurations, and this is a trend likely to grow |
| 17 |
> worse. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Rich |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
How about changing "[properly] supporting a separate /usr without an |
| 23 |
initramfs" to "supporting a system with /usr missing at boot time" ? |
| 24 |
More generic, indicates the actual problem better. Otherwise sounds |
| 25 |
great to me. |
| 26 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 27 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlJC+7QACgkQ2ugaI38ACPAXxgEAhbkqYQjs5G1kdklcVSYVoCCd |
| 30 |
ZXYCAhBVryEqFycMPfABAMCKsbLx0uD0ZGxWbX/PXfpdVSogvd54fOemDWVV6leq |
| 31 |
=XOnB |
| 32 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives