Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2012-05-08
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:04:01
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2012-05-08 by William Hubbs
Hash: SHA512

On 04/24/2012 08:56 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 08:21:41PM +0200, Fabian Groffen 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 vote on. >> >> Please respond to this email with agenda items. Please do not >> hestitate to repeat your agenda item here with a pointer if you >> previously suggested one (since the last meeting). > > Council members, > > I am very concerned about your vote last meeting with regard to > separate /usr being supported. Whether or not it will be supported > is not a valid question, because it will be. > > There is now division in the community about your vote, so I am > formally requesting a clarification. > > I can assure the council that we are not going to try to stabilize > newer versions of udev out of hand. We have a tracker bug open > which will show all of the tasks we need to complete before that > happens [1]. > > Once that happens, I want to start looking into the /usr merge > (see below). > > I think the more appropriate question is, do we want to continue > attempting to support /usr as a separate partition without an > initramfs? > > This affects much more than udev. There is another event happening > in the linux community which is referred to as the /usr merge [2]. > I know this is happening on Fedora. I believe archlinux is looking > into doing this, and Debian is as well. > > One advantage gentoo, as a distro, would have if we do the /usr > merge is that we can get rid of gen_usr_ldscript. This was put in > place as a workaround [3], and we would be able to remove it. > > Any distribution which does the /usr merge will not be able to > support /usr as a separate partition without an initramfs, and I > think it is just a matter of time until packages don't check > /{sbin,bin,lib*} any longer. > > We did have a pretty extensive discussion on the dev mailing list > regarding the /usr merge, and my feeling from the community was > that we should do this [4]. > > In summary, I feel that if we continue supporting separate /usr > without an initramfs, we will be harming our distro in the long > run, so I would ask you to please carefully consider this before > you vote. > > Thanks much, > > William > > [1] [2] > > >
[3] I
was very confused the first time this topic was brought to the Council. I still believe this is not something we (Council) should decide but rather the udev maintainers should decide themselves. In any case, I am fine with bringing this issue back to Council as it seems there is a general confusion in the Gentoo community about this. - -- Regards, Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJPlyEtAAoJEPqDWhW0r/LCcP4P/idWNSK4M3AOBmKgmr9E4xDe kxRBzSF4Xj+crohpYVT+dd9JAxfTlxPqwG0HyxktvGccZPMbMqweNEh6tb6Y1j7W VtcmBxY5DZntr1qZAu4agr9SkHufl6E2ptxK/+YMkXqgc9fUOIvWaeolqTQmPh62 zt43zgsDQqNiMksR+kV2iBXuHEmVpGpJ7iUAbiq+Mh5ifXbRJodXy4ELQP71y1fu UKu1Pp8AY0fuV43wfdHBR9BzyQvL1d7H+HfvwDVej4bDuWftEfWVGoXnHGJSv6gA I4CEF29nn3gbw++/gv7AdCf6DWxkFXCn8JqUOQhhX4mre/mKrMsffKIibZImKa6p hE6k4PxY6VqdTMfMUqSqMh8NufR7cuQL1yG8CZEDJmz/ruCwRT66u66Sb7CzVxA/ mzXVQXCKCfCaa3klliMY9yFBtbKs7YAXBzmky3HFzs3UBwyTadbmvqw0UeTdXaHp /EiYg2rElvK4BX4eEgBYa+40Q0nDAzC6IMAIftvHlvwb6t/dk8rHdmGtFX6689P8 AWoVsU1ooL3Gf6yOyNb5GE6zsDAMzbFa60gr5g10LmxD7n4FFzjwsKGZhrCtG0ek M8I/eAXCB4uQ/+tJTYPwb6boyv5giB7bWPMhBvcAAoTuEIzx1OPIE6UKGNdytxTj cBlWOphMavH3+h7HOoYJ =mOHn -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----