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 <gentoo-dev+bounces-51068-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
id 1SLprq-000787-O3
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 06:01:50 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EE080E0B87;
Sun, 22 Apr 2012 06:01:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42C54E0AA8
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 06:00:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-qa0-f53.google.com (mail-qa0-f53.google.com [209.85.216.53])
(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
(Authenticated sender: floppym)
by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7C1391B40EC
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 06:00:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by qadc11 with SMTP id c11so959791qad.19
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 21 Apr 2012 23:00:48 -0700 (PDT)
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.220.145 with SMTP id hy17mr7658991qab.2.1335074448592;
Sat, 21 Apr 2012 23:00:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.24.130 with HTTP; Sat, 21 Apr 2012 23:00:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <jn04lk$q2i$1@dough.gmane.org>
References: <20353.41193.129711.306663@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de>
<20120408220422.GA26440@kroah.com>
<CAGfcS_mLRBCEuvs2gQu8Ov9XD2MoKmFjCn+giLFsLLnvikoYOw@mail.gmail.com>
<jlv8e2$fdj$1@dough.gmane.org>
<4F833687.4040004@gentoo.org>
<jm2q2o$4n7$1@dough.gmane.org>
<4F8503DF.1010802@gentoo.org>
<jm43b9$a0e$1@dough.gmane.org>
<4F85E21C.4060106@gentoo.org>
<jmvr06$96o$1@dough.gmane.org>
<CAGfcS_nPz=6kGg49kwZ-6GGAeB0fixzUQxyyXbU8-bbO0ndKng@mail.gmail.com>
<jn04lk$q2i$1@dough.gmane.org>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 02:00:48 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJ0EP40AR_AEb_N4naXoewGFsZUkpCbfcWm_+Vf1W46cGtpCEw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [gentoo-dev-announce]
Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012
From: Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Archives-Salt: cd165e71-4980-49ca-8c96-899bb2765f62
X-Archives-Hash: cdfde971100928050a6a66f1477a66ee
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 1:28 AM, Steven J Long
<slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> The Council has voted that Gentoo continue to support that subset,
>>> without an initramfs.
>>
> (The "subset of users" being those who do not need udev before localmount.)
>
>> Citation, please?
>>
>
> <ulm> New udev and separate /usr partition
> <Chainsaw> In my opinion, a separate /usr partition has been a supported
> configuration for a very long time and should remain so.
> <Betelgeuse> Chainsaw: So to clarify a universal initramfs is not enough?
> <Chainsaw> Betelgeuse: No. That is additional work for a clearly broken
> package.
>
> So we must support separate /usr *without* an initramfs.
>
> <dberkholz> who's going to either "port" udev as necessary, or maintain an
> old version forever?
> <Chainsaw> I will keep an old version going until the end of time.
> <Chainsaw> dberkholz: My plan is to patch reasonable behaviour back into
> udev, and going with the upstream releases as long as it is feasible.
>
> To confirm again, that this is about without initramfs:
> <dberkholz> sure i can. maintain old udev-XXX forever, put an elog in new
> udev that says "if you want separate /usr without initramfs, install old
> udev, mask new, or whatever"
>
> And again, I ask: if it were *not* about running udev without an initramfs,
> then why would anyone even be discussing the possibility of patching or
> forking?
>
Here is my interpretation: the council voted on the following question:
<ulm> The question is: "Decide on whether a separate /usr is still a supported
configuration."
It did not decide the method that would be used to accomplish this. A
few council members (Chainsaw mainly) expressed a desire to do it
without an initramfs, but an official stance on this was not put
forward.
You are reading into it more that you should.