Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] With regard to udev stabilization
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 00:02:26
Message-Id: CAGfcS_=MJuo7adP+51MOrs5c0aoS-AARty5er90g4yY7GVk3Pw@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] With regard to udev stabilization by "Tony \\\"Chainsaw\\\" Vroon"
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