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 838A8138010 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 18:03:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 189DEE04E7 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 18:03:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5F7421C013 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 16:21:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.132] (CPE002401f30b73-CM001cea3ddad8.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.242.65.202]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: axs) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1CBEC33D7FE for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 16:21:01 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <508FFE6C.4070200@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 12:21:00 -0400 From: Ian Stakenvicius User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.7) Gecko/20120925 Thunderbird/10.0.7 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 To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 13-11-2012 References: <20121030150024.GU85698@gentoo.org> <20121030153613.GA6948@linux1> In-Reply-To: <20121030153613.GA6948@linux1> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 82f1e520-486c-4922-9161-795e5a7fe15e X-Archives-Hash: d440801e28ed5bfb507b2413f0d40db8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 30/10/12 11:36 AM, William Hubbs wrote: > 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. > The end result of this assumption is that the use of gen_usr_ldscript() and the move of libs from /usr/lib to /lib will become deprecated, correct? I think it's pertinent to note this (or whatever other changes will then be requested/required for Council to decide on) within this discussion, if not also within the "plan".. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlCP/msACgkQ2ugaI38ACPBEWgEAhz3bZDerxT/8bVt+1YzMoeDs osrzwFXdi+06vF8MTjQBAI79FHc6IO3hjk9kbqD96Urh73zR1WCI2DtlpSypXBvj =ZgY/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----