| 1 |
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 6:49 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> The whole reason I brought this up is, according to some, the council |
| 3 |
> did step in in April of 2012 and mandate that we must support separate |
| 4 |
> /usr without an early boot workaround. If you read the meeting log from |
| 5 |
> that meeting, it seems pretty clear that was chainsaw's intent. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Because of that perception, if base-system decides to do something |
| 8 |
> differently, there would definitely be flack over it. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I understand that completely. However, I'd only like to step in if |
| 11 |
base-system actually plans to do something and is concerned about |
| 12 |
there being flack over it. If they don't care to change anything then |
| 13 |
no action is needed. If they plan to change things but don't care |
| 14 |
about hearing people complain, then no action is needed. If I took |
| 15 |
action it would only be to tell them they can do whatever they want to |
| 16 |
as long as an initramfs still works (or whatever other workarounds |
| 17 |
people come up with) - I'd just prefer to only step in if somebody |
| 18 |
feels there is a need. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Right now the only argument I'm hearing is that we need to clarify |
| 21 |
what the policy is because the policy is unclear and lack of clear |
| 22 |
policy bothers some people. I'm not hearing why we care about there |
| 23 |
being a policy in the first place. If somebody just states "I'm doing |
| 24 |
a lot of extra work because I feel like I have to, so please tell me |
| 25 |
that I don't have to" then I'm fine with stepping in. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Rich |
Archives