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 ) id 1SH0Ej-0006n8-UB for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 08 Apr 2012 22:05:30 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 006E4E0B6A; Sun, 8 Apr 2012 22:05:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4972AE0B23 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2012 22:04:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.41]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEE52218F3 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2012 18:04:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend1.nyi.mail.srv.osa ([10.202.2.160]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 08 Apr 2012 18:04:26 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=smtpout; bh=A7hrSiCSJ2vPvKz/TD2LQ+UYbh4=; b=EUK8EjuUtNuSNyt6cjV4OtfZ8Vxr phxhnLpR8LV3t/fQFMc9O+Gb8U1R14Gt6pAlt4Jyh8h6FJZXeagRR03msqnT2qsA FwXIKS593CyEDViN6ic5dEciZri8ZYUGb92WGgKaO3fIZbatO94wGqXMypTZB0Tp SVop23xcaEiEMVE= X-Sasl-enc: 8vwEBKF1LfcdLHOld/PuwnRCg2ywueg3Xgb1JNMIecxP 1333922666 Received: from localhost (c-67-168-183-230.hsd1.wa.comcast.net [67.168.183.230]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4AD7A8E0230; Sun, 8 Apr 2012 18:04:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2012 15:04:22 -0700 From: Greg KH To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012 Message-ID: <20120408220422.GA26440@kroah.com> References: <20353.41193.129711.306663@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20353.41193.129711.306663@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: ab8d9dd5-1b59-4f09-bccf-ff2c63bae3fb X-Archives-Hash: e0c6a2ee4fde76189d72479c710399d7 On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 04:30:01PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > New udev and separate /usr partition > ==================================== > Decide on whether a separate /usr is still a supported configuration. > If it is, newer udev can not be stabled and alternatives should be > investigated. If it isn't, a lot of documentation will have to be > updated. (And an alternative should likely still be provided.) > > The council has voted in favour of a separate /usr being supported > (5 yes, 1 no vote). What? > During the discussion, some concerns were raised that we might not be > able to provide a modified or forked udev version. Chainsaw assured > that if necessary, he will maintain a udev version that supports said > configuration. It isn't udev that is the problem here, it's the loads of other packages. udev is just being "nice" and pointing out that the user has a problem. > It was remarked that a solution that comprises both the forked udev > version (separate /usr) and the latest versions is possible and > therefore should not block either way preferred by users. How in the world are you going to support this type of thing, when it isn't udev that is the issue? And udev isn't even the problem, all you need is to mount your /usr from initramfs. So, the original proposal wasn't even a correct/valid proposal in the first place. Papering over the issue, by just keeping udev from reporting the problem is NOT a valid solution. You are shooting the messenger here. greg k-h