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 384D61381F3 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 21:02:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BD65021C048 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 21:02:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-oa0-f53.google.com (mail-oa0-f53.google.com [209.85.219.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5AA2821C07F for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 18:53:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oa0-f53.google.com with SMTP id j6so3107562oag.40 for ; Thu, 08 Nov 2012 10:53:52 -0800 (PST) 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=HJ0u3f8SMqG80rhvorlIyIoWrcwPLYCtgV7DgdwMyOM=; b=1BnSTFTlUvxM140qSDgJ/LcKCKOBSVzGJSzAUVHpI0dnuscQumb9OibgmOWAa3Ls+M nCVYL0hmMnCejtNtO/0OOCpHSFUD/pxVj53o1wX2YQRRukzk5jRmj5w2VPph1c9K3Ma8 I3qjHgTzz8qb3je5YkgRXfN7kV/lV/ex0qjJvJZPM9Wq2iRbJZjzDVnc7KmG3EymjNgm BR2+PMI06PtuYvJIR5KoZDboieIcvWjXYlvhncVMxKqMKlD+rMZJcLCf4NrmKUAYq5xH sqFYW2B2sKygQCKWbnceHmtWzMkiwKHlSPi+pxKGW8TSoX6FAIMMm4ZjuXXfSO2Hk+e8 LRTQ== Received: by 10.182.42.6 with SMTP id j6mr5130230obl.93.1352400832548; Thu, 08 Nov 2012 10:53:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from linux1 (cpe-76-187-95-60.tx.res.rr.com. [76.187.95.60]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m6sm27305726obk.3.2012.11.08.10.53.49 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 08 Nov 2012 10:53:51 -0800 (PST) Sender: William Hubbs Received: by linux1 (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 08 Nov 2012 12:53:48 -0600 Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 12:53:48 -0600 From: William Hubbs To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Council meeting: Tuesday 11 November 2012, 19:00 UTC Message-ID: <20121108185348.GB3931@linux1> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org References: <20121106212816.GE82762@gentoo.org> <20121108174548.GB3842@linux1> <20121108181557.GP83592@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="K8nIJk4ghYZn606h" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121108181557.GP83592@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: bf2916f6-feba-4b94-8efc-60170ba2712c X-Archives-Hash: 05049f71afe57feda13c2f4c4adafc7c --K8nIJk4ghYZn606h Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 07:15:57PM +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 08-11-2012 11:45:48 -0600, William Hubbs wrote: > > > - approve/disapprove removal of gen_usr_ldscript > >=20 > > A better way to put this is disabling gen_usr_ldscript on Linux. > > Some of the alternate platforms still use it, so I do not advocate > > killing the function. > > If we go forward with the plan, there is no reason the council should > > reject disabling gen_usr_ldscript on Linux that I am aware of. > >=20 > > This also has to wait until the blockers are resolved on the tracker. >=20 > Do you suggest to drop the point from the agenda? I'd love that. =20 I believe we can drop the gen_usr_ldscript question, yes, because if everything else happens, we can just have the toolchain guys make it a noop on Linux. > > > - define timeframe > > > * 30 days > > > * 6 months > > > * 1 year > > =20 > > Once the blockers are done and we release a news item, implementing > > one of the choices is a matter of emerging a package, possibly running a > > command (genkernel with the appropriate options) and updating your boot > > loader configuration before your next reboot. > >=20 > > Considering that we are holding back stabilizations of more and more > > packages the longer we wait, is it really a good idea to extend the time > > frame to 6 months or a year? >=20 > Yes. I don't think it is reasonable to have a very short timeframe for > having to make such a potentially dangerous change. I agree that this is a potentially dangerous change. However, I don't think= it is reasonable for us to penalize stable users by making them wait a year for newer software because we are waiting to make sure that those who have a separate mount for /usr make a change that we can't make for them automatically. I would be ok with going a little longer than 30 days, but 6 months or a year might be a bit extreme. I guess I'm just thinking that no matter how long we wait, there is going to be someone out there who isn't going to follow our directions. William --K8nIJk4ghYZn606h Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlCb/7wACgkQblQW9DDEZThDJgCeJ+UEnYH7DssIitnOfvRjp5bI v8AAoLxPFENo3M5D0npaDeREhqyprkbu =CvZk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --K8nIJk4ghYZn606h--