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 2012-05-08
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 12:03:38
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2012-05-08 by Fabian Groffen
On 04/27/2012 12:13 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> In my humble opinion, the essential bit missing here, is where both > camps respect each other. That is, not to make it impossible for either > camp to follow their vision. > I've made suggestions for this in the last council meeting. The options > we have as Gentoo -- a remarkable flexible and well controllable > source-based distribution -- are numerous. We can have special > profiles, introduce new USE-flags, etc. > > So far, the discussion has indicated not more than a shift of programs > from / to /usr. This, IMO, should be controlled by a profile/use-flag > setting. That is, gen_usr_ldscript should NOT go, but rather stay, and > just do nothing if the user is following the GnomeOS vision.
Has anybody created an antithetical document to "The Case for the /usr Merge"? It could be called "The Case Against the /usr Merge", and it would be useful to have such a document in order to justify support of the special profiles and USE-flags that you propose. There is an obvious demand to provide a way forward for Gentoo's installed base of separate-/usr-without-initramfs systems, but using your proposed profiles and USE-flags as the way forward seems like overkill in comparison to the simple alternatives that exist: Alternative 1: Don't install /usr on a separate partition Alternative 2: Mount /usr early with an initramfs So, if we're going to move forward with your proposed profiles and USE-flags, then let's create a document to justify it. -- Thanks, Zac