Re: [gentoo-project] rfc: separate /usr preparation vote

[William Hubbs]

On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 03:30:45PM -0400, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 08/27/2013 03:11 PM, Roy Bamford wrote:
> > On 2013.08.17 23:20, William Hubbs wrote:
> >> Council members,
> >>
> >> After looking over the documentation I know about [1] [2] [3], I
> >> think
> >> it is safe to Say we are prepared to move forward with stating that
> >> the
> >> 	preparations for early boot mechanisms are complete.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> William
> >>
> >> [1] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/initramfs-guide.xml
> >> [2] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-x86+raid+lvm2-
> >> quickinstall.xml
> >> [3] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Early_Userspace_Mounting
> >> [4] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=481202
> >>
> >
> > William,
> >
> > If such a vote were to go in your favour, what are the next steps and
> > the timescale(s) for these steps?
> >
> > You clearly perceive the vote you seek as endorsing a plan of action
> > relating to the /usr merge.
>
> While the /usr merge does require people to use initramfs, using
> initramfs does not require a /usr merge.
>
> Please, keep two completely separate topics separate like they are.  I
> am 1000% behind requiring initramfs, I couldn't possibly care less about
> /usr merge, in my eyes it's a hack to handle stupidity.

Rick is correct. I am not trying to force the /usr merge. That is a
totally separate topic.

All I'm asking the council to do in this vote is make sure that our
documentation for building initramfs is ready. Once that is done, bugs
like https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bugs.cgi?id=443710 would be invalid
because we can just tell people to setup initramfs and point them to the
documentation.

The /usr merge is a separate topic, for another time.

William