On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 09:36:56PM +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Friday, April 1, 2016 8:33:02 PM CEST, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On 01 Apr 2016 20:00, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> >> On Friday, April 1, 2016 3:58:18 AM CEST, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>>> ...
> >>> "being supported" != "enabled by default".  so no, i still don't see any
> >>> requirement in anything you've cited that this be turned on 
> >>> by default. ...
> >> 
> >> you're right, but you know, before you claimed the contrary of what was 
> >> voted and then decided to argue whether a 4 years old council decision 
> >> applies or not here, my point was, and still is, that such council 
> >> decisions make me think you're confusing what *you* want and 
> >> what *we* (as 
> >> a project) want for this case
> >
> > i see no significant number of people clamoring for this as the default.
> > the bug that started this has everyone on board for changing the default.
> 
> yes; I also tend to think fedora's usr move is what makes most sense 
> nowadays, but that'd go against council

No, it wouldn't. We made a decision in 2013 (I'll have to find it) that
separate /usr should only be supported via initramfs; there is also a
news item warning that if you are not using initramfs and you have
separate /usr your system will be unbootable in the future.

> 
> > it's really no different either from the install process today: a stage3
> > cannot be unpacked & booted directly.  a user must configure it before it
> > can actually be used.  if that means enabling USE=sep-usr, then so be it.
> 
> except it adds yet another step
> 
> > there's no reason to force this legacy behavior on the majority of people
> > when a split-/usr is uncommon.
> 
> what's the reason not to force it? saving 10kb from ldscripts out of a 1Gb 
> typical desktop install ? doesnt seem like a reason for disabling it either
>