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 1SMvKp-00041Q-GF for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 06:04:15 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1F599E094A for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 06:04:15 +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 8EDBAE0923 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 03:34:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: by obbun3 with SMTP id un3so2168203obb.40 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:34:48 -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=Nhwu8EX3ksfIlAED+JazfY35pZnN0iiOo446xDhygjo=; b=szn2SuJPkYtmpUWaA6P8iim/2MLcLMY4mmbzZBZ1KsKOBHSSsEzURC9bVl+scMSJXa 2zKL/DcRV20p+x0vYYE2/2kMbnyowhpP6uuN/gObf/E9B5Xnv5mLekBxd5kOFD1TKwf5 gsCrrcHY4XAnPzJL4aBUqBlgi3dvSk6ONQhWKLeVZH05arVxRwgO20ZkoTHH7Nwvrjb2 3dP9QwWrgKHWWEmpOXFlqDWUKiQxqm2CaEEHRJwYK5QO0niy03hklIb+mVB/dNv4xxgg Vm0aDeEVf3Rb5Z49KCN5gmF+uSs0gWw+DDHDSZ4X+GoRVII+MvaC3zM9/e23b+iICg9v vkxQ== Received: by 10.60.4.134 with SMTP id k6mr1210609oek.19.1335324888006; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:34:48 -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 w4sm18552582oeg.12.2012.04.24.20.34.46 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:34:47 -0700 (PDT) Sender: William Hubbs Received: by linux1 (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 24 Apr 2012 22:34:45 -0500 Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 22:34:45 -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: <20120425033445.GA7542@linux1> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org References: <20120424182141.GQ10282@gentoo.org> <20120424195622.GA6572@linux1> <4F97212D.4050407@gentoo.org> <20120424222600.GA7074@linux1> 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="h31gzZEtNLTqOjlF" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: 4b34a846-e97e-4b42-8666-d767953ef1e6 X-Archives-Hash: 7dda652b87021fbddf0753570a38379f --h31gzZEtNLTqOjlF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 08:20:10PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > 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. Everybody has to live with this stuff couldn't be more true. We are talking about changes in the linux world that are coming from outside of gentoo. > On the other hand, somebody has to maintain all this code, so having a > bunch of non-udev-maintainers telling them what to do is not a great > thing either. Worst case you end up with a bunch of frustrated people > giving up on it, which leaves us much worse off. If you are paying > your staff you can tell them what to do, but with volunteers you need > to be more "inspirational" in your leadership. If the udev team > thinks this is the way the wind is blowing then either more people > need to step up and help them maintain more configurability, or we > need to just work with them to make the ride as smooth as we can. I > don't think anybody wants to see needless end-user pain here in any > case, and as far as I can tell the udev maintainers are quite willing > to work with other projects (genkernel, dracut, docs, etc) as needed. Like I said above, it isn't just the udev maintainers. We aren't talking about changes to udev. we are talking about changes to the entire linux ecosystem. > I think the best we can do is look for opportunities to give people > choices when they're practical, and when people are willing to pitch > in and maintain their side of the interfaces. You don't even have to > be a Gentoo developer to do that - just look at OpenRC/etc - get an > account on github, do good work, and ask some developer to commit your > ebuilds. I too am definitely a proponent of choice. However, I don't feel that the choice of having /usr on a separate file system without using an initramfs is a practical one to offer; especially with the /usr merge coming down the pipe. I didn't like making the change either. But, after some thought and reading the arguments supporting it, I did, because I can see how it will make things easier in the future. Building an initramfs that works was simple on my system using genkernel; the tracker for udev points to the bug that shows how to do it. Once the documentation for setting up an initramfs is in place which will be done before >=udev-182 is stabilized, all you will need to do is set one up, then you can just enjoy the ride. We will not start the /usr merge before this udev is stabilized. William --h31gzZEtNLTqOjlF Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk+XcNUACgkQblQW9DDEZThTeQCdFQessMp7piSDy2pwFNKQEL27 yJEAoJuhpeTA1AVEA+gxkiq8hbltNxsz =2TDG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --h31gzZEtNLTqOjlF--