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 9442E1381F3 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 21:07:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AB4C7E0A7C; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 21:07:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ob0-f173.google.com (mail-ob0-f173.google.com [209.85.214.173]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 119C5E0A41 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 21:07:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ob0-f173.google.com with SMTP id ta17so4923519obb.32 for ; Thu, 01 Aug 2013 14:07:16 -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=ltAIRnrOIxwoqYXfoASl81Q/IijZvvqw/XFC3vJYFps=; b=RztxM9usl3Of+qZzMf0aEUJ2dvn/Stp2dc9HvdW7LpvJIZpJHAEA9JpYZ3gEm3thzG fh+9QODe+h6vzfoENmteYio2BpE7YQIF7YInoOUxAQOIk5yDpq2tZftH//+B1JzM3rSL Q5+QXIYrErp2yaWtnh04aa0/+J2VOCZgpNLXRYCJgfHoVCwPucKmFow2eWfurARb2Z6n BdhR28Smx+A4/Dyu14OfYF074b7wwiLenDckKQ3WSP5qHutTXatKFvv6OMOy5S7i8FJw tBNnBy7ADkmAP4a3IORTQE04QhtAU54mTmp4e+F7fu6PzV4Jv4mtWZQwYTzFh1De97UT 8Dpg== X-Received: by 10.60.138.137 with SMTP id qq9mr2850719oeb.8.1375391236201; Thu, 01 Aug 2013 14:07:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from linux1 (cpe-76-187-91-128.tx.res.rr.com. [76.187.91.128]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id q8sm4903427obl.11.2013.08.01.14.07.13 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 01 Aug 2013 14:07:15 -0700 (PDT) Sender: William Hubbs Received: by linux1 (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 01 Aug 2013 16:07:12 -0500 Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 16:07:12 -0500 From: William Hubbs To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2013-08-13 Message-ID: <20130801210712.GA32416@linux1> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org References: <20984.56290.884684.403396@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20130801003614.GA29807@linux1> <20130801160434.789cfc63@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="+QahgC5+KEYLbs62" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130801160434.789cfc63@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: a39477e0-2759-4dda-979e-d02c42b97cfc X-Archives-Hash: d61ae3fb3e00260ac69179c6542a8bdc --+QahgC5+KEYLbs62 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 04:04:34PM -0400, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 19:36:14 -0500 > William Hubbs wrote: > [...] > > First, we will not have to worry any more about making sure all of the > > libraries needed by binaries in /{bin,sbin} are in /lib*. Also, we > > will not have to be concerned about programs on / trying to read data > > from /usr/share in early boot. =20 First off, this is all related to Linux only, so keep that in mind when I answer below. > Why are those programs in / in the first place ? If they can't work > without /usr they are sort of useless in /. Not really. if you use an initramfs or some early boot mechanism like that to make sure / and /usr are mounted at the same time, that separation is irrelivant. > > Because of this information, I propose that we vote not to > > require maintainers to support separate /usr configurations without an > > initramfs or some other early boot mechanism. >=20 > 'not to require' leaves it up to the maintainers e.g. if they want to > call gen_usr_ldscript or install into /, right ? Or does that imply they > should not do it ? =20 I'll talk about gen_usr_ldscript below. > The current requirement imposes some consistency, and lifting it would > leave us with some bastardized system where some random files are in / > and others in /usr. =20 As I said in my original proposal, there is or is not a requirement depending on who you talk to and where you read. The summary of the meeting doesn't say anything about such a requirement, even though the log does, so it is not a clear situation right now. > I have no opinion whether separate usr should be supported or not: I > have not been using this layout since years. However, I strongly prefer > some kind of consistency: The traditional layout with a minimal / to > boot or the usr move both have their advantages; if we go for something > in between we get none of them. What we currently have is in between. To really make separate /usr work would require a /share top level directory, patching gettext at least to look in both /usr/share/locale and /share/locale, and who knows what else. I'm not advocating the /usr merge at this time, maybe later, but right now I just want to make it official that we do not support separate /usr without an early boot mechanism like an initramfs or the sep-usr flag on busybox under Linux. >=20 > I think most of what is in / currently is maintained by base-system@. > base-system@, or the council, could decide to provide a way to drop the > self-contained / properly. Say, you have to define a variable in > make.conf, let's call it GENTOO_USR_MOVE, and this variable would no-op > gen_usr_ldscript (they waste space if /usr is required anyway) and then > some packages could decide to install to /usr instead of / if this > variable is set, etc. Once this is ready, you can define this variable > in the profiles and get all the profit advertised by Fedora usr move. (putting my base-system hat on) I'm not sure why we would need a profile variable like you are suggesting. The reason gen_usr_ldscript came into being is that we were already moving shared libraries from /usr/lib* to /lib* and we hit bug 4411, where = the linker was choosing a static library in /usr/lib over a dynamic library in /lib. Besides moving the shared library from /usr/lib* to /lib*, it writes a linker script in /usr/lib* to redirect the linker to look for the shared library in /lib*. So, I think it has to be disabled completely on Linux before the /usr move can be considered. It is smart enough to be able to tell when it is on linux (by checking the CHOST value like it already does for some things), so at some point I want to talk to the rest of base-system and toolchain to figure out a sane procedure for turning it off on linux. Again that has to be done after this vote. William --+QahgC5+KEYLbs62 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlH6zgAACgkQblQW9DDEZTjNOQCgmnPNT51iUT0WzyDcNS5m6Nfp OhoAoIYQAi398AvphRpBM4RTUmTgJ92w =DYX9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --+QahgC5+KEYLbs62--