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-51395-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
id 1SQKFx-0000hC-GY
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 04 May 2012 15:17:17 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2795AE072C;
Fri, 4 May 2012 15:17:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 341A4E06F4
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 4 May 2012 15:16:21 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 656AF1B400C
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 4 May 2012 15:16:21 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.122
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.122 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5
tests=[AWL=-0.374, 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 M_hyaCMjokoQ for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>;
Fri, 4 May 2012 15:16:14 +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 590BB1B4011
for <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>; Fri, 4 May 2012 15:16:13 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from <lnx-gentoo-dev@m.gmane.org>)
id 1SQKEq-000467-JJ
for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Fri, 04 May 2012 17:16:08 +0200
Received: from 91.85.61.115 ([91.85.61.115])
by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
for <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>; Fri, 04 May 2012 17:16:08 +0200
Received: from slong by 91.85.61.115 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
for <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>; Fri, 04 May 2012 17:16:08 +0200
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
From: Steven J Long <slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk>
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012
Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 16:20:41 +0100
Organization: Friendly-Coders
Message-ID: <jo0rrf$tej$1@dough.gmane.org>
References: <20353.41193.129711.306663@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20120408220422.GA26440@kroah.com> <CAGfcS_mLRBCEuvs2gQu8Ov9XD2MoKmFjCn+giLFsLLnvikoYOw@mail.gmail.com> <jlv8e2$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> <CAJ0EP40AR_AEb_N4naXoewGFsZUkpCbfcWm_+Vf1W46cGtpCEw@mail.gmail.com> <20371.51767.784259.131892@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <jn0iou$8m6$1@dough.gmane.org> <4F94462C.9000006@gentoo.org> <4F944A2D.30004@gentoo.org>
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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 91.85.61.115
X-Archives-Salt: 673eb4fb-4d23-4c01-b519-65c570707bf8
X-Archives-Hash: 20b2fd669eb865adafdbcbc04941c546
Zac Medico wrote:
> On 04/22/2012 10:55 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> On 04/22/2012 05:28 AM, Steven J Long wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Hmm... I see that in Zac's reply, thanks for that.
>>
>> Unfortunately, from what I can tell, that clarification was not actually
>> part of the proposed agenda [5], nor was it directly referenced. So the
>> subject of the vote still seems open to interpretation.
>
> Yeah, it almost seems as though the council was being intentionally
> vague and leaving things open to interpretation.
Wow, man, never thought I'd see *you* weasel out of something like that ;)
> In response, we had
> William post about the ">= udev-182 tracker" [1], to which Tony seemed
> to respond positively [2].
>
That was about process to do with stabilisation. Of course having a tracker
to monitor any issues is a positive step.
It doesn't say anything at all about what the base requirement was, nor what
was up for discussion at the meeting. You yourself clarified that it was
about no initramfs as soon as it was raised to Council: that was the only
thing that could cause a technical issue, specifically to users who have
setup according to official documentation, requiring a policy decision.
And that's what all the discussion was about: the consequence of making that
policy decision (ie who would maintain patches, which are no longer needed.)
Still, this got silly weeks ago. Clearly Council needs to vote again with
clear wording, or people will keep trying to pretend that they weren't
discussing what they were asked to discuss.
Regards,
Steve.
--
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)