From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org)
by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
(envelope-from <gentoo-dev+bounces-49154-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
id 1Rhmza-0002U0-DD
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 02 Jan 2012 18:52:19 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DB8E721C3C1;
Mon, 2 Jan 2012 18:52:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-yw0-f53.google.com (mail-yw0-f53.google.com [209.85.213.53])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01C8E21C3C0
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 2 Jan 2012 18:51:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by yhjj52 with SMTP id j52so10383289yhj.40
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 02 Jan 2012 10:51:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to
:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition
:in-reply-to:user-agent;
bh=YJG/id33Rho+jGKCUKKzkHKEqumJR0d9qkTah2YAaNE=;
b=qpN0/rUuySGeU0wUu/qtuSaUFhCFRdT8xJGhFcdjy2O3hL28XKSzysbXmvHXZXU5RM
uSYViQ/HpJGlYiy9MGxYRU+mbDEn7TiLI2Kwg81e4rzonlW8DcxFBt5/zyBYMl4G8a3O
iRzs1Ofd9CmW9Mw2PVRPUoF5J/J9kzPjkrQ/A=
Received: by 10.236.131.1 with SMTP id l1mr64862865yhi.82.1325530304525;
Mon, 02 Jan 2012 10:51:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from linux1 (cpe-76-187-77-158.tx.res.rr.com. [76.187.77.158])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id h11sm26947022and.21.2012.01.02.10.51.42
(version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
Mon, 02 Jan 2012 10:51:44 -0800 (PST)
Sender: William Hubbs <w.d.hubbs@gmail.com>
Received: by linux1 (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 02 Jan 2012 12:46:17 -0600
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2012 12:46:17 -0600
From: William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Cc: robbat2@gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr
Message-ID: <20120102184617.GA3739@linux1>
Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org, robbat2@gentoo.org
References: <20120101015947.GA9914@linux1>
<20120101185434.3d019941@pomiocik.lan>
<20120102175457.GB1636@linux1>
<20120102193741.7948276f@pomiocik.lan>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="r5Pyd7+fXNt84Ff3"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20120102193741.7948276f@pomiocik.lan>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Archives-Salt: 6beede56-3618-45a7-b6aa-682f89000c43
X-Archives-Hash: fbb5c8b900d82fa17a9ac9145093add0
--r5Pyd7+fXNt84Ff3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 07:37:41PM +0100, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 11:54:57 -0600
> William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
>=20
> > > For a long-term view, 1) is the only way to go. Splitting packages
> > > randomly between rootfs and /usr was never really correct, and we
> > > especially shouldn't force users to junk their systems with
> > > shattered packages and cheap glue to keep it all working.
> > >=20
> > > I'd suggest going the other way than I did with kmod. Temporary IUSE
> > > like 'install-to-usr', disabled by default for now. Packages having
> > > that IUSE should have correct USE-dependencies, and users who need
> > > not to use that could just enable 'install-to-usr' globally (we'd
> > > probably want to mask it first).
> >=20
> > I'm not sure that a use flag is a good idea for this, because there
> > will definitely be people who would turn it off, and with upstreams
> > assuming that this is how things are installed, those who turn it off
> > will have broken systems.
>=20
> But it will give some of us a chance to carefully test changes without
> enforcing them on all users or leaving them to lag behind with
> packages.
Stable or ~arch users wouldn't be affected, just those unmasking things
in p.mask.
> Another, maybe even better solution is keeping modded packages in an
> overlay.
Absolutely not. I don't see a reason to use an overlay for this; that's
what p.mask is for.
> > What does everyone think? What am I leaving out?
>=20
> I think you are missing the long, necessary transition period.
I'm not sure I agree. I don't see why there has to be a long transition
period if we coordinate everything correctly.
William
--r5Pyd7+fXNt84Ff3
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk8B+3kACgkQblQW9DDEZThr/QCZARvNz87tW+6V7ahwvGNP0mqS
Lw8AoJCvbYuI0groFCX7bISs2coEKrAK
=fSY2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--r5Pyd7+fXNt84Ff3--