| 1 |
Am Donnerstag, 1. August 2013, 23:16:26 schrieb Rich Freeman: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> I do favor the dropping of support for separate /usr without an early |
| 4 |
> boot workaround. I just don't think the council should actually step |
| 5 |
> in until somebody needs us to, or as part of some larger plan. If the |
| 6 |
> base-system maintainers have things under control, better to let them |
| 7 |
> handle it. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
1) I have some doubts that this is really "under control". Maybe someone from |
| 11 |
base-system should comment how well booting with separate usr AND without |
| 12 |
early boot mechanism works. (That's also where Diego's blog posts come in.) |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
2) The main difficulty is that last council decided "something" and everyone |
| 15 |
has a different opinion on what was actually decided. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
3) If things are not "under control", no council decision will magically fix |
| 18 |
that. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
4) We should also remind ourselves that the general Gentoo philosophy used to |
| 21 |
be "follow upstream as much as possible". Given the general direction in Linux |
| 22 |
outside Gentoo, more and more software may migrate into /usr. Do we want to |
| 23 |
step up patching? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Andreas K. Huettel |
| 28 |
Gentoo Linux developer |
| 29 |
dilfridge@g.o |
| 30 |
http://www.akhuettel.de/ |
Archives