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 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 ; 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 ; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 06:00:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qadc11 with SMTP id c11so959791qad.19 for ; Sat, 21 Apr 2012 23:00:48 -0700 (PDT) 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 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: References: <20353.41193.129711.306663@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20120408220422.GA26440@kroah.com> <4F833687.4040004@gentoo.org> <4F8503DF.1010802@gentoo.org> <4F85E21C.4060106@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 02:00:48 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012 From: Mike Gilbert 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 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? >> > > New udev and separate /usr partition > In my opinion, a separate /usr partition has been a supported > configuration for a very long time and should remain so. > Chainsaw: So to clarify a universal initramfs is not enough? > Betelgeuse: No. That is additional work for a clearly broken > package. > > So we must support separate /usr *without* an initramfs. > > who's going to either "port" udev as necessary, or maintain an > old version forever? > I will keep an old version going until the end of time. > 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: > 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: 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.