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 1SNVrR-0001AB-L6 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 21:04:21 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E1EDEE080B for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 21:04:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smarthost02.mail.zen.net.uk (smarthost02.mail.zen.net.uk [212.23.1.2]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15BA3E0874 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 18:45:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [62.3.120.142] (helo=NeddySeagoon) by smarthost02.mail.zen.net.uk with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SNTh9-00065a-EY for gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 18:45:35 +0000 Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 19:45:34 +0100 From: Roy Bamford Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2012-05-08 To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org References: <20120424182141.GQ10282@gentoo.org> <20120424195622.GA6572@linux1> <4F97212D.4050407@gentoo.org> <20120424222600.GA7074@linux1> In-Reply-To: (from rich0@gentoo.org on Wed Apr 25 01:20:10 2012) X-Mailer: Balsa 2.4.8 Message-Id: <1335465934.3059.0@NeddySeagoon> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Originating-Smarthost02-IP: [62.3.120.142] X-Archives-Salt: 7feff0ef-374d-4fdf-a6a1-3184cf54b993 X-Archives-Hash: 3420beaa06298d09450c561542250b82 On 2012.04.25 01:20, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 6:26 PM, William Hubbs > wrote: > > Honestly, I agree with you. I am a udev maintainer myself, and the > udev > > maintainers did not bring this issue to council. More than that, no > one, > > that I recall, discussed any ramifications of this vote with any > udev > > maintainers before bringing it to council. > > > > The ramifications, as I said in my previous email, are not just=20 > udev > > related (see the section in my previous email about the /usr=20 > merge). > > > > Once we start implementing the /usr merge, it will not matter > whether > > you use udev or not, =A0you will have to have an initramfs if your > /usr is > > separate. >=20 > I have mixed feelings on this. >=20 > The fact that the ramifications are not just udev-related tends to > point to the fact that this shouldn't simply be up to the udev team. > These are big changes for Gentoo, and there is a great deal of > controversy across the Linux world resulting from them (the > Shuttleworth vs Pottering debate being the latest iteration of this). > Everybody has to live with this stuff, which points to council > involvement. >=20 [snip] > Rich >=20 Council involvement is only useful where there is a choice to be made between alternatives and the proponents of the options can't agree. In the udev case, there is as yet, no viable alternative, so the option=20 is take it or leave it. Gentoo may wish to support separate /usr without an initrd but until=20 the code base allows it, there is nothing for the council to vote on.=20 --=20 Regards, Roy Bamford (Neddyseagoon) a member of elections gentoo-ops forum-mods trustees =