| 1 |
On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 05:16:26PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> I do favor the dropping of support for separate /usr without an early |
| 3 |
> boot workaround. I just don't think the council should actually step |
| 4 |
> in until somebody needs us to, or as part of some larger plan. If the |
| 5 |
> base-system maintainers have things under control, better to let them |
| 6 |
> handle it. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
The whole reason I brought this up is, according to some, the council |
| 9 |
did step in in April of 2012 and mandate that we must support separate |
| 10 |
/usr without an early boot workaround. If you read the meeting log from |
| 11 |
that meeting, it seems pretty clear that was chainsaw's intent. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Because of that perception, if base-system decides to do something |
| 14 |
differently, there would definitely be flack over it. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
In a nutshell, I am asking the council this question: |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Is separate /usr, without an early boot mechanism like an initramfs, |
| 19 |
an officially supported configuration? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
William |
Archives