From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 389261381F3 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 20:05:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D0A62E06EE; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 20:05:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E8D6E06C0 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 20:04:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.42]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31344209EA for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:04:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from frontend1.nyi.mail.srv.osa ([10.202.2.160]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:04:05 -0500 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=86ynzs8bBfWYisOZZqeM7ddcNyg=; b=OJDxkX+4heLUN0lGkJX6egoQP5EN 3t6kAL73IlY9ebD7bIEcLJhnMr7FER6EUUKj5wNHQbtRZb9P11C17+jHa3FTMEP0 Vd68mjAV2zzoocvk7r91ES/MdmkV4gflpD05g/qE75eNz2g+R6bGRD+BC4fEVnKT tiolYRRZY1Cruss= X-Sasl-enc: cWn2qk97iJ+vQN+3K2Ne10zRkvoUq9IX0nCZbgk0r/99 1355515444 Received: from localhost (unknown [67.168.183.230]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id BEE708E068C; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:04:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 12:04:03 -0800 From: Greg KH To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Summary Council meeting: Tuesday 11 December 2012 Message-ID: <20121214200403.GB31147@kroah.com> References: <20121204181128.GT9976@gentoo.org> <20121214104341.GK8220@gentoo.org> <20121214182823.GA15581@kroah.com> <50CB7877.5010905@gentoo.org> <20121214192800.GA24841@linux1> 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: <20121214192800.GA24841@linux1> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: addb2a39-9634-4a62-8a14-0a0692246b0d X-Archives-Hash: e67aa14165337f5066ac687d6ce396b0 On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 01:28:00PM -0600, William Hubbs wrote: > 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. It's not my job to do this, nor yours, or fix any of these issues. It's up to the people who wish to keep a separate /usr partition without an initramfs to do this work. greg k-h