| 1 |
On 02/08/13 01:49, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 05:16:26PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 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 |
> The whole reason I brought this up is, according to some, the council |
| 10 |
> did step in in April of 2012 and mandate that we must support separate |
| 11 |
> /usr without an early boot workaround. If you read the meeting log from |
| 12 |
> that meeting, it seems pretty clear that was chainsaw's intent. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Because of that perception, if base-system decides to do something |
| 15 |
> differently, there would definitely be flack over it. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> In a nutshell, I am asking the council this question: |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Is separate /usr, without an early boot mechanism like an initramfs, |
| 20 |
> an officially supported configuration? |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> William |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
The work can continue separating / vs. /usr deps still -- I've just done |
| 26 |
that for libusb, libusbx, libusb-compat using `gen_usr_ldscript -a` from |
| 27 |
toolchain-funcs.eclass |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Then gen_usr_ldscript could be converted to no-op, or at least gain |
| 30 |
environment variable like USR_MOVE="yes" in which case nothing is moved |
| 31 |
to / and it's really no-op. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
This was just discussed today at end of this bug 478878 |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
So let's keep the work going if someone requests, but lets convert |
| 36 |
gen_usr_ldscript optional |
Archives