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
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2012-04-03 by "Tony \\\"Chainsaw\\\" Vroon"
On 03/20/2012 04:23 AM, Tony "Chainsaw" Vroon wrote:
> On 20/03/12 06:48, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> In two weeks from now, the council will meet again. This is the time >> to raise and prepare items that the council should put on the agenda >> to discuss or vote on. > > Newer udev (180+) is attempting to force /usr to be mounted *very* early > in the boot sequence. No other software has this requirement, and it is > going to break LVM2 users that have a separate /usr. Our official > documentation recommends this, even today: > > > Now that it is unmasked and unleashed on ~arch users, this might result > in an attempt to stable it. I would like for the council to decide on > whether a separate /usr is still a supported configuration.
To clarify, the question is whether or not we support a separate /usr _without_ mounting it early via an initramfs.
> If it is, newer udev can not be stabled and alternatives should be > investigated.
A possible compromise would be to use pkg_pretend to check if /usr is a mount point, and die if the user hasn't set a variable or a USE flag to indicate awareness that /usr must be mounted early.
> If it isn't, a lot of documentation will have to be > updated. (And an alternative should likely still be provided)
-- Thanks, Zac