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 1SLt3b-0004XV-BO for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 09:26:11 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AEF71E0C0F; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 09:25:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74F1AE0C02 for ; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 09:25:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC91A1B408B for ; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 09:25:10 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.653 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.653 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.905, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=1.164, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Haw6sYS3sN3b for ; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 09:25:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 13CE61B40EC for ; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 09:25:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SLt2N-0004U9-Gq for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 11:24:55 +0200 Received: from 109.176.201.97 ([109.176.201.97]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 11:24:55 +0200 Received: from slong by 109.176.201.97 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 11:24:55 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Steven J Long Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012 Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 10:28:51 +0100 Organization: Friendly-Coders Message-ID: 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> <20371.51767.784259.131892@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> 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="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 109.176.201.97 X-Archives-Salt: a7571145-7a19-4abe-9bff-7c884556c415 X-Archives-Hash: 642bb10846d9bfe9b4988cf8bf0136a4 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > | 3. New udev and separate /usr partition (30 minutes) > | > | See [4]: "Decide on whether a separate /usr is still a supported > | configuration. If it is, newer udev can not be stabled and > | alternatives should be investigated. If it isn't, a lot of > | documentation will have to be updated. (And an alternative should > | likely still be provided.)" > | > | [4] > | [ > >From the first reply: "To clarify, the question is whether or not we support a separate /usr _without_ mounting it early via an initramfs." I hope that settles that particular issue. -- #friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)