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 1SMmuX-0008Og-Ri for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 21:04:34 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6F056E0841 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 21:04:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ob0-f181.google.com (mail-ob0-f181.google.com [209.85.214.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE2C8E0772 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 19:56:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: by obbun3 with SMTP id un3so1568343obb.40 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:56:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=oXWl/3HwBofCMV2n39rnp8kUhnzhRAfBdI/PNhSwYLw=; b=CJ+2EgrXgnZMRlF5nFJv8GHqk4LN+Gipca3V8g667IZQ5qB95bK46HXNaApn2u0Onh XwgSifXHHOzbqJHiZCZMusbSSMaEISTwSUrTAKe8Qr6VRybNTL4G/mfFAXdCZg9/4cy7 CJdUjkOjXJfgvEMzZk/n7wu/miced9M517H9oizw44YgS+LkqhJ3Vob0SIGNP2y6gpU1 qw1Jy6ocPjhaLAoxXOD0bQoIgWDLXToXthrbQYj2xUa5IvlkSlSuvRRnyfFk8oevb/Al 3QGCWYd490xA1mRUA2vdq23BW8qn1zq6xTAfz0cT9ttXhFLKJeJj4vkKwyvp8HcYTRdz +Kcg== Received: by 10.182.74.8 with SMTP id p8mr9677827obv.41.1335297385372; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:56:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from linux1 (cpe-76-187-77-158.tx.res.rr.com. [76.187.77.158]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id tx2sm21385135obb.8.2012.04.24.12.56.23 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:56:24 -0700 (PDT) Sender: William Hubbs Received: by linux1 (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 24 Apr 2012 14:56:22 -0500 Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 14:56:22 -0500 From: William Hubbs To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2012-05-08 Message-ID: <20120424195622.GA6572@linux1> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org References: <20120424182141.GQ10282@gentoo.org> 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: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="YZ5djTAD1cGYuMQK" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120424182141.GQ10282@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: 140e3854-e8bf-4d00-afbc-8407e66e47de X-Archives-Hash: 5a3e7a62abc3f6f529cbb18d85f2fbcf --YZ5djTAD1cGYuMQK Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 08:21:41PM +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: > In two weeks from now, the council will meet again. This is the time > to raise and prepare items that the council should put on the agenda to = =20 > vote on. >=20 > Please respond to this email with agenda items. Please do not hestitate > to repeat your agenda item here with a pointer if you previously > suggested one (since the last meeting). Council members, I am very concerned about your vote last meeting with regard to separate /usr being supported. Whether or not it will be supported is not a valid question, because it will be. There is now division in the community about your vote, so I am formally requesting a clarification. I can assure the council that we are not going to try to stabilize newer versions of udev out of hand. We have a tracker bug open which will show all of the tasks we need to complete before that happens [1]. Once that happens, I want to start looking into the /usr merge (see below). I think the more appropriate question is, do we want to continue attempting to support /usr as a separate partition without an initramfs? This affects much more than udev. There is another event happening in the linux community which is referred to as the /usr merge [2]. I know this is happening on Fedora. I believe archlinux is looking into doing this, and Debian is as well. One advantage gentoo, as a distro, would have if we do the /usr merge is that we can get rid of gen_usr_ldscript. This was put in place as a workaround [3], and we would be able to remove it. Any distribution which does the /usr merge will not be able to support /usr as a separate partition without an initramfs, and I think it is just a matter of time until packages don't check /{sbin,bin,lib*} any longer. We did have a pretty extensive discussion on the dev mailing list regarding the /usr merge, and my feeling from the community was that we should do this [4]. In summary, I feel that if we continue supporting separate /usr without an initramfs, we will be harming our distro in the long run, so I would ask you to please carefully consider this before you vote. Thanks much, William [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D411627 [2] http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/TheCaseForTheUsrMerge [3] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D4411 [4] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_c3c5bdabbe058b08627ff04cee896= af3.xml --YZ5djTAD1cGYuMQK Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk+XBWYACgkQblQW9DDEZTigZgCaA5Fxn1SpxA/sZqrK9MJ8CELz n4YAoKA6f3Y+cu81B7ercSqRN7Q2TGAw =FWV9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --YZ5djTAD1cGYuMQK--