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 1SHosr-0007P3-GO for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 04:10:17 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D9B1EE0D69; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 04:10:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9342E0CD2 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 04:09:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.42.4] (staff-wireless.saddleback.edu [209.129.85.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: zmedico) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BB7341B4002 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 04:09:08 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4F8503DF.1010802@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 21:09:03 -0700 From: Zac Medico User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120404 Thunderbird/11.0.1 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012 References: <20353.41193.129711.306663@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20120408220422.GA26440@kroah.com> <4F833687.4040004@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 1ffc4a85-b839-4a64-bc77-90eb29d8da50 X-Archives-Hash: 3d38916735c075bca2a91026262e33fb On 04/10/2012 07:28 PM, Steven J Long wrote: > I suppose you could script that, but again, it just seems like a lot of > bother to implement an "alternative" that doesn't actually gain anything > over the traditional setup (plus making sure that partitions are mounted > before udev starts.) At least in the case of udev, we gain from not having to maintain a fork. > As for the burden of ensuring that binaries installed to /{s,}bin don't link > to libs in /usr, why not just automate a QA check for that, and let > developers decide whether a fix is necessary? After all, core packages that > do that even when configured with prefix and execprefix = /, aren't so > portable, and Gentoo has always championed "doing the right thing" wrt > helping upstream fix portability issues. If the relevant ebuild developers really want to support that, it's fine I guess. Hopefully that won't involve using static links as workarounds for cross-/usr dependencies. -- Thanks, Zac