Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2012-04-03
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 21:03:00
Message-Id: 4F6A19FD.6020209@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2012-04-03 by "Tony \\\"Chainsaw\\\" Vroon"
1 On 03/20/2012 04:23 AM, Tony "Chainsaw" Vroon wrote:
2 > On 20/03/12 06:48, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
3 >> In two weeks from now, the council will meet again. This is the time
4 >> to raise and prepare items that the council should put on the agenda
5 >> to discuss or vote on.
6 >
7 > Newer udev (180+) is attempting to force /usr to be mounted *very* early
8 > in the boot sequence. No other software has this requirement, and it is
9 > going to break LVM2 users that have a separate /usr. Our official
10 > documentation recommends this, even today:
11 > http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/lvm2.xml
12 >
13 > Now that it is unmasked and unleashed on ~arch users, this might result
14 > in an attempt to stable it. I would like for the council to decide on
15 > whether a separate /usr is still a supported configuration.
16
17 To clarify, the question is whether or not we support a separate /usr
18 _without_ mounting it early via an initramfs.
19
20 > If it is, newer udev can not be stabled and alternatives should be
21 > investigated.
22
23 A possible compromise would be to use pkg_pretend to check if /usr is a
24 mount point, and die if the user hasn't set a variable or a USE flag to
25 indicate awareness that /usr must be mounted early.
26
27 > If it isn't, a lot of documentation will have to be
28 > updated. (And an alternative should likely still be provided)
29 --
30 Thanks,
31 Zac

Replies