| 1 |
Splitting thread so that the agenda thread isn't lost in discussion: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> I have no opinion whether separate usr should be supported or not: I |
| 5 |
> have not been using this layout since years. However, I strongly prefer |
| 6 |
> some kind of consistency: The traditional layout with a minimal / to |
| 7 |
> boot or the usr move both have their advantages; if we go for something |
| 8 |
> in between we get none of them. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I tend to loosely agree here. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
My inclination right now is to support this proposal if either of the |
| 13 |
following is true: |
| 14 |
1. Somebody explains that right now the absence of a decision is |
| 15 |
causing them actual problems (extra work, limitations, whatever). |
| 16 |
2. This becomes necessary to enable some larger long-term goal, which |
| 17 |
has received council approval. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
#2 was basically covered by Alexis already. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Regarding #1, I informally emailed the base-system maintainers a week |
| 22 |
ago about whether there was any need to revisit last year's decision. |
| 23 |
I didn't really get a sense that anybody really needed the council to |
| 24 |
step in now. I recognize that William is also a base-system |
| 25 |
maintainer so if he wants to state that he is subject to some kind of |
| 26 |
extra work or such supporting separate /usr without an early boot |
| 27 |
workaround I'll certainly be sympathetic. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I do favor the dropping of support for separate /usr without an early |
| 30 |
boot workaround. I just don't think the council should actually step |
| 31 |
in until somebody needs us to, or as part of some larger plan. If the |
| 32 |
base-system maintainers have things under control, better to let them |
| 33 |
handle it. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Rich |
Archives