| 1 |
On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 04:30:01PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
> New udev and separate /usr partition |
| 3 |
> ==================================== |
| 4 |
> Decide on whether a separate /usr is still a supported configuration. |
| 5 |
> If it is, newer udev can not be stabled and alternatives should be |
| 6 |
> investigated. If it isn't, a lot of documentation will have to be |
| 7 |
> updated. (And an alternative should likely still be provided.) |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> The council has voted in favour of a separate /usr being supported |
| 10 |
> (5 yes, 1 no vote). |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
What? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> During the discussion, some concerns were raised that we might not be |
| 15 |
> able to provide a modified or forked udev version. Chainsaw assured |
| 16 |
> that if necessary, he will maintain a udev version that supports said |
| 17 |
> configuration. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
It isn't udev that is the problem here, it's the loads of other |
| 20 |
packages. udev is just being "nice" and pointing out that the user has |
| 21 |
a problem. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> It was remarked that a solution that comprises both the forked udev |
| 24 |
> version (separate /usr) and the latest versions is possible and |
| 25 |
> therefore should not block either way preferred by users. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
How in the world are you going to support this type of thing, when it |
| 28 |
isn't udev that is the issue? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
And udev isn't even the problem, all you need is to mount your /usr from |
| 31 |
initramfs. So, the original proposal wasn't even a correct/valid |
| 32 |
proposal in the first place. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Papering over the issue, by just keeping udev from reporting the |
| 35 |
problem is NOT a valid solution. You are shooting the messenger here. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
greg k-h |
Archives