From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AD3B138010 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 18:02:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C4BDA21C073 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 18:02:06 +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 D191221C07B for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:36:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ob0-f181.google.com with SMTP id un3so369559obb.40 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 08:36:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to :references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=cMwozMuAFvImMrqABwufe3U0Ru244HyMIpElVEcU0s4=; b=wTHVQCO7jnekpGWFAbl9TRzOs0nn1mMmHiq43Zt4a5/PpPsztmxhndFfspZAKiKHf6 6ZT9Iszgsom/lvj14C8wdl3sjtEBjpaFAPuO2xYZ355DEV4b+rdnY05lcwRAjVoa8NJE 8WdIOg7Fq3Vxc+vRnJZ/jv5xDpTtNoi8lL57xMgne8PYS5LksVYCIzke1DgBIvO29kAw kasKCudb8MuN4X1CCsMQJ8CaIyPNw2+fB7xkdVbN448KHOQQz15q+zOWJzzMmAVoMBmj 4L5N1Qs1NvnzDn602lDlyWggxMUt2Q+IvSDhyqa3P2WPHC4p/hBdAswylXK1dqU4YFcH HQzQ== Received: by 10.60.172.226 with SMTP id bf2mr5641812oec.48.1351611377268; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 08:36:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from linux1 (cpe-76-187-95-60.tx.res.rr.com. [76.187.95.60]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o3sm851152obk.13.2012.10.30.08.36.14 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 30 Oct 2012 08:36:16 -0700 (PDT) Sender: William Hubbs Received: by linux1 (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 30 Oct 2012 10:36:13 -0500 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 10:36:13 -0500 From: William Hubbs To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Cc: flameeyes@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 13-11-2012 Message-ID: <20121030153613.GA6948@linux1> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org, flameeyes@gentoo.org References: <20121030150024.GU85698@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="SLDf9lqlvOQaIe6s" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121030150024.GU85698@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: f6765966-4075-4cda-ace3-971465f6b934 X-Archives-Hash: 53dfbfa6011b586e2615574e276d8094 --SLDf9lqlvOQaIe6s Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Fellow Council Members: We now have two methods of handling separate /usr configurations on Linux in the tree. The first, and by far, the most flexable method is to use an initramfs. This method is now documented in the initramfs guide [1] and the handbooks. It would need to be used if a user needs specialized drivers running or modules loaded before the / or /usr file systems can be accessed. A non-inclusive list of these situations would be RAID, LVM2, ZFS, and software for encrypted file systems. The second method can be used if the flexability of the first method is not needed. It involves re-emerging >=sys-apps/busybox-1.20.0 with the sep-usr use flag active and following the instructions in the elog messages. This is the way to support separate /usr without an initramfs if someone wants this. The goal of separate /usr support is to insure that /usr is always available when / is, and both of these methods meet this goal. If users switch to one of these methods, there is no further work required by us to support separate /usr configurations. I have gone over this with Diego in QA, and he agrees that these are the methods we should use. That is why he is on the cc: specifically for this email. I believe the only remaining step is for the council to approve this plan, so I would like it to be added to the agenda. If this is approved, my plan will be to release a news item then give a time window for users to read the news item and make their decision [2]. Once the time window expires, we could assume that users with separate /usr have switched to using one of these two methods of supporting it. Thanks, William [1] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/initramfs-guide.xml [2] I'm thinking a reasonable time window would be 30 days. That could be up for discussion; however, I don't know of any reasons that we should wait too much longer. --SLDf9lqlvOQaIe6s Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlCP8+0ACgkQblQW9DDEZTiaJQCfYWnT7O+9omEGz/ksHBTPLPBO zGsAn2K5RgC6fXFBypHUh63f3WSXcA6Z =TF8G -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --SLDf9lqlvOQaIe6s--