1 |
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Tony "Chainsaw" Vroon |
2 |
<chainsaw@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> On Tue, 2012-11-13 at 21:04 +0100, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
4 |
>> Also would be nice to know if the plans to fork |
5 |
>> udev are only to let it handle separate /usr partition or more changes |
6 |
>> (that could need more and more months) |
7 |
> |
8 |
> The perceived potential for this project to overrun does not exist. I |
9 |
> have committed, on personal title, to have this done for the next |
10 |
> meeting or to go away and admit defeat. |
11 |
> Please see the meeting logs if you do not believe me. |
12 |
|
13 |
My main reason for going along with this was that with a few blockers |
14 |
left, I think it is likely to be a few weeks before we're ready to |
15 |
start the migration window anyway. |
16 |
|
17 |
Work on the blockers can continue (openrc, genkernel, etc), and we can |
18 |
start working on news items as well. If that all goes smoothly |
19 |
perhaps there won't be as much pressure for the migration window to be |
20 |
a long one. |
21 |
|
22 |
Something that did come up was whether we can use profiles to manage |
23 |
the masks so that users can make the choice of when they move. We can |
24 |
very well deprecate old profiles and set timelines and such to ease |
25 |
things on maintainers, but this approach would let individuals control |
26 |
their destiny a bit more. It would also make things easier for |
27 |
earlier adopters - we could stabilize all the packages even but leave |
28 |
them masked on the non-migrated profile. The profile could also |
29 |
control shared library movement to /usr as discussed previously as |
30 |
well. |
31 |
|
32 |
Rich |