Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: William Hubbs <williamh@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Council meeting: Tuesday 11 November 2012, 19:00 UTC
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 03:02:07
Message-Id: 20121110014206.GA2152@linux1
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Council meeting: Tuesday 11 November 2012, 19:00 UTC by Fabian Groffen
1 On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 07:21:25PM +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote:
2 > On 09-11-2012 09:32:47 -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
3 > > > Testing it. Testing the /usr move broadly.
4 > > > You want gen_usr_ldscript on non-bootable systems (eg prefix, mingw) to
5 > > > be (mostly) a noop too which you can't distinguish from only CHOST.
6 > >
7 > > That has been done already by toolchain a while back. Take a look at the
8 > > code in toolchain-funcs.eclass. There are very few platforms where this
9 > > function does anything at all these days. It would just be a matter of
10 > > removing linux from the platforms it supports.
11 >
12 > They tested it? Are you referring to the platforms from bug #417451?
13 > (excluding the Prefix platforms, because in the Prefix tree
14 > gen_usr_ldscript just works, because it breaks existing installs to
15 > disable it)
16
17 Look at the first case statement in gen_usr_ldscript and tell me if you
18 disagree with what I'm saying. The function always executes on darwin.
19 On linux and any bsds, it executes for non-prefix setups. On any other
20 platform, prefix or not, it does nothing.
21
22 So, if I'm reading the code correctly, on prefix, more than likely it
23 isn't doing anything.
24
25 > > > IMHO this needs a discussion on -dev before going through the council.
26 > >
27 > > I would send the patch to do this to -dev anyway, so at that time I
28 > > guess we could have folks apply it and rebuild their systems and see
29 > > what breaks.
30 > >
31 > > Since applying the patch itself will not force any rebuilds, it should
32 > > just end up being a natural migration; as things are rebuilt the
33 > > libraries will move from /lib to /usr/lib with no harm being done.
34 >
35 > I thought so too, until I got dangling symlinks for older zlib for some
36 > reason (preserve-libs? ebuild?) which wasn't really a funny experience.
37
38 What symlinks did you have?
39
40 > So, before this is done, we must test it in all forms, not rely on theory.
41
42 I am not disagreeing with you.
43
44 The only way to test is, after the time window for migrating to
45 initramfs or sep-usr busybox expires, have people start migrating and
46 see how it goes.
47
48 > Alexis' profile suggestion nicely allows existing installs to remain as
49 > is, new installs to be without /usr-split, and people to move over when
50 > they deem that a good idea.
51
52 If we do this with a variable, I suggest using it temporarily, but
53 ultimately dropping it and having everyone switch over after things are tested.
54
55 Again, I think 6 months or a year are too long for this testing window.
56
57 William

Replies