| 1 |
El mar, 13-11-2012 a las 09:06 -0500, Rich Freeman escribió: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 2:55 AM, Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On 12-11-2012 21:40:53 -0500, Richard Yao wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> I understand that the council is scheduled to vote on a topic related to |
| 5 |
> >> udev stabilization. Would it be possible to delay the vote for another |
| 6 |
> >> month so that we have time to get organized? |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > The Council has no votes scheduled for today's meeting. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Huh? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> 2. Handling separate /usr support[1] (15 minutes) |
| 14 |
> - approve/disapprove plan (forcing everyone to take action, and |
| 15 |
> implement one of the two "supported" solutions) |
| 16 |
> - approve/disapprove removal of gen_usr_ldscript |
| 17 |
> - define timeframe |
| 18 |
> * 30 days |
| 19 |
> * 6 months |
| 20 |
> * 1 year |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> 3. Policy on "<" versioned dependencies[2] (5 minutes) |
| 23 |
> - state whether said policy exists (homework for the council members) |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Rich |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
And why not allow that new version to be stabilized and add a third |
| 30 |
option (until fork is clarified) over initramfs and busybox options: |
| 31 |
people having splitted /usr partition and don't wanting to use any of |
| 32 |
the other two options can simply hardmask newer udev locally that won't |
| 33 |
be dropped until that month to clarify the fork. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
We are already waiting for months for getting newer udev stabilized... |
| 36 |
needing to wait another month for even taking a decision on that looks |
| 37 |
depressing to me and people don't having splitted /usr isn't even |
| 38 |
affected by this one. Also would be nice to know if the plans to fork |
| 39 |
udev are only to let it handle separate /usr partition or more changes |
| 40 |
(that could need more and more months) |
Archives