Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012

[Mike Gilbert]

On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 1:28 AM, Steven J Long
<slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote:
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> The Council has voted that Gentoo continue to support that subset,
>>> without an initramfs.
>>
> (The "subset of users" being those who do not need udev before localmount.)
>
>> Citation, please?
>>
>
> <ulm> New udev and separate /usr partition
> <Chainsaw> In my opinion, a separate /usr partition has been a supported
> configuration for a very long time and should remain so.
> <Betelgeuse> Chainsaw: So to clarify a universal initramfs is not enough?
> <Chainsaw> Betelgeuse: No. That is additional work for a clearly broken
> package.
>
> So we must support separate /usr *without* an initramfs.
>
> <dberkholz> who's going to either "port" udev as necessary, or maintain an
> old version forever?
> <Chainsaw> I will keep an old version going until the end of time.
> <Chainsaw> dberkholz: My plan is to patch reasonable behaviour back into
> udev, and going with the upstream releases as long as it is feasible.
>
> To confirm again, that this is about without initramfs:
> <dberkholz> sure i can. maintain old udev-XXX forever, put an elog in new
> udev that says "if you want separate /usr without initramfs, install old
> udev, mask new, or whatever"
>
> And again, I ask: if it were *not* about running udev without an initramfs,
> then why would anyone even be discussing the possibility of patching or
> forking?
>

Here is my interpretation: the council voted on the following question:

<ulm> The question is: "Decide on whether a separate /usr is still a supported
      configuration."

It did not decide the method that would be used to accomplish this. A
few council members (Chainsaw mainly) expressed a desire to do it
without an initramfs, but an official stance on this was not put
forward.

You are reading into it more that you should.