[gentoo-dev] Re: Dropping static libs support from cryptsetup and lvm2

[Steven J. Long]

Pacho Ramos wrote:
> How the /usr in other partition ended finally then? I though that, since
> there are a lot of things in / that rely in others in /usr, people were
> supposed to either use initramfs or busybox to get /usr mounted

As Rich said, lvm doesn't link outside rootfs so it's not an issue: you only really
need an initramfs if rootfs is on lvm/encrypted/raid, or you need udev to get through
localmount.
 
William Hubbs wrote:
> Unfortunately it hasn't ended; the debating over it just stopped.
>
> There was a council vote in April 2012 over this, but it isn't even
> clear what they voted for.

You know it was perfectly clear: zmedico had even posted the initial clarification
of chainsaw's agenda item, immediately it was raised, and as ulm made it clear the
last time this was discussed, that was what was voted on.

What happened after was that people who didn't like the decision tried to weasel out
of it by claiming that it wasn't really what was discussed, despite the clear trail.

More of "the stupidity of not accepting decisions" and moving on to implementation,
that is usually attributed to "traditionalists."

> My personal opinion though, is that if people  have /usr separate from
> /, they should be using an initramfs to get /usr mounted. If they want
> to use busybox[sep-usr] this is an option that we came up with
> internally in gentoo, but it has many limitations.

It's funny how you always discuss those two options and consistently fail to mention
the one option that allows people who never needed an initramfs before to continue
without one, and still use udev in line with upstream requirements, but there it is:

http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-901206.html
(constructive feedback welcome, as ever: ie stuff that helps improve the situation,
not arguments about why udev's upstream requirement isn't really what GregKH said it
was.)

-- 
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)