Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Summary Council meeting: Tuesday 11 December 2012

[William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2458 bytes --]

On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 02:05:27PM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
> 
> On 14/12/12 01:28 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 11:43:41AM +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> >> Handling separate /usr support ============================== 
> >> After the discussion on [1] during the previous meeting, a delay
> >> of one month due to a new fork of udev was requested.  We need an
> >> update on what's happened.
> >> 
> >> Chainsaw reported udev and eudev have moved on, and for both it
> >> is now possible to have a separate /usr.  The follow-up
> >> discussion related to the /usr-merge is necessary.
> > 
> > udev was never the problem of having a separate /usr without an
> > initrd. Have all of the other packages been properly fixed to
> > resolve this issue correctly?
> > 
> > Also, what's the plan for eudev going forward?
> > 
> 
> 
> Eudev's project announcement is coming soon, should answer your questions.
> 
> In terms of udev's dependencies, yes, the few dependencies that were
> installing only to /usr (ie, kmod and xz-utils) have been switched to
> install to /, and then fixed again due to issues with they way they
> were done the first time so that they also work.  I believe however
> they are still ~arch keyworded.
> 
> There may of course be other entirely independent packages needed at
> boot time prior to localmount, I do not know that status of those.
> Once eudev (the gentoo package) fully supports separate-/usr (which it
> doesn't at this time as it uses the same init scripts as udev-196), we
> will be sure to resolve them.
> 
> It should be noted that sys-fs/udev (the package) since ..  186 I
> think?  whichever version dropped support for the failed-rules queue
> (and whichever package dropped the udev-postmount init script) does
> not support booting with a separate /usr.  This has more to do with
> how the package installs than the upstream code itself, though; as
> such (WilliamH please correct me if I'm wrong) the plan is still to
> require an initramfs if using sys-fs/udev with a separate-/usr.

Greg, can you write back to this message with specific examples of what
would need to be customized so that separate /usr would work  right
without an initramfs? I have tried to explain multiple times that this
is a mis-conception that udev caused it, but I am getting nowhere.

Thanks,

William


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]