Re: [gentoo-project] Council meeting: Tuesday 11 November 2012, 19:00 UTC

[William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2557 bytes --]

On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 07:21:25PM +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 09-11-2012 09:32:47 -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
> > > Testing it. Testing the /usr move broadly.
> > > You want gen_usr_ldscript on non-bootable systems (eg prefix, mingw) to
> > > be (mostly) a noop too which you can't distinguish from only CHOST.
> > 
> > That has been done already by toolchain a while back. Take a look at the
> > code in toolchain-funcs.eclass. There are very few platforms where this
> > function does anything at all these days. It would just be a matter of
> > removing linux from the platforms it supports.
> 
> They tested it?  Are you referring to the platforms from bug #417451?
> (excluding the Prefix platforms, because in the Prefix tree
> gen_usr_ldscript just works, because it breaks existing installs to
> disable it)

Look at the first case statement in gen_usr_ldscript and tell me if you
disagree with what I'm saying. The function always executes on darwin.
On linux and any bsds, it executes for non-prefix setups. On any other
platform, prefix or not, it does nothing.
 
So, if I'm reading the code correctly, on prefix, more than likely it
isn't doing anything.

> > > IMHO this needs a discussion on -dev before going through the council.
> >  
> >  I would send the patch to do this to -dev anyway, so at that time I
> >  guess we could have folks apply it and rebuild their systems and see
> >  what breaks.
> > 
> >  Since applying the patch itself will not force any rebuilds, it should
> >  just end up being a natural migration; as things are rebuilt the
> >  libraries will move from /lib to /usr/lib with no harm being done.
> 
> I thought so too, until I got dangling symlinks for older zlib for some
> reason (preserve-libs? ebuild?) which wasn't really a funny experience.

What symlinks did you have?

> So, before this is done, we must test it in all forms, not rely on theory.
 
I am not disagreeing with you.

The only way to test is, after the time window for migrating to
initramfs or sep-usr busybox expires, have people start migrating and
see how it goes.

> Alexis' profile suggestion nicely allows existing installs to remain as
> is, new installs to be without /usr-split, and people to move over when
> they deem that a good idea.

If we do this with a variable, I suggest using it temporarily, but
ultimately dropping it and having everyone switch over after things are tested.

Again, I think 6 months or a year are too long for this testing window.

William


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]