Re: [gentoo-project] rfc: separate /usr preparation vote

[Sven Vermeulen <swift@gentoo.org>]

On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 09:48:09PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> > I just don't see any reason for waiting, at least not right now.  If
> > the argument is that we should give users some period of time to
> > prepare, then we should be sending out some kind of specific news item
> > telling them what preparations to make and THEN waiting.
> 
> The vote is to make sure all of the necessary documentation is in place,
> so this isn't really part of it. But, yes, once this vote passes,
> communication to users as the changes happen will be important.

Documentation can always be improved, but I do feel it is up to the task
already. We document how to create an initramfs using genkernel (which is
dead easy) and mention several times that a separate /usr (or root on LVM)
requires an initramfs.

All our examples use the initramfs as well.

> > Finally, I could see the /usr merge as a POSSIBLE reason to move
> > things sooner.  If somebody wants to propose some plan to make that
> > happen they should do so, and we can debate it on this list and so on.
> >  However, I don't see any value in moving a bunch of stuff around
> > purely for the sake of a /usr merge when there isn't any plan to
> > finish the work.  If anybody is thinking about that being the driver
> > they need to have a plan that actually gets us to the end goal, and of
> > course we need to agree that this is even a goal we want to have.
> 
> The /usr merge is a totally separate issue that I really don't want to
> bring into this discussion. There are people who are fine with us
> cleaning up the separate /usr issue, but opposed to the /usr merge, so
> that needs to be a separate item imo.

Yes please; merging / <-> /usr has impact beyond just documentation and
initramfs. For SELinux for instance, that means our policies will need to be
adjusted so all /bin/* contexts also get assigned to /usr/bin (and /sbin to
/usr/sbin) and symlinks are "accepted" where they are currently not.

I think for such a merger, we'll need to know what will be the goal, and set
steps in that direction that make it so a transition is not full-park,
big-bang, but rather gradually with little to no end user involvement
(step-wise).

Wkr,
	Sven Vermeulen