From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <gentoo-project+bounces-2271-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org> Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5786A1381F3 for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 12:03:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DD84021C0C6 for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 12:03:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bk0-f53.google.com (mail-bk0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBE6821C00A for <gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 11:13:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-bk0-f53.google.com with SMTP id j5so126601bkw.40 for <gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 03:13:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=CmLK3GOcMsd6SvDlXLq3A1J/dIfsa0ys0MgrtqVJheQ=; b=MwS/UxKmBzvw995CxPJ93EcpXUKYKmfbF+kjoN/qt0yNa80KXMg/FjVnykEXm8hStH KcKsnH+kL3sTg6grlhMNyCzB27CKbbQV8Rmwx5Pi8xtof3m7QZm6ytw21NmV2ZC878f3 HfLEOT+rmIXgbX8U2jE2fnDXJycOLD4evWwRL/r9BkyVBojEkSCsTYh+NfKM74eG6z06 GsRZhsru4D57CTaEFGfHx8PgGt4kcLuMk8gtiSBJ73p1O8l6ZyTym6Q+FfaIZDZXSQiC mumWUMwKUGvNWK/NVoBikISbXEYA7xegUY2zXWH2WCEpa5C6PWrDEqbzzG7zcLXD5Mj7 EJtw== Precedence: bulk List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org> List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-project+help@lists.gentoo.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-project+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-project+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org> List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list <gentoo-project.gentoo.org> X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.12.220 with SMTP id y28mr6016815bky.112.1352891631438; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 03:13:51 -0800 (PST) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.204.12.28 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 03:13:51 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20121114091258.GC22540@gentoo.org> References: <50A1B335.2080907@gentoo.org> <50A33D67.6050709@gentoo.org> <20121114091258.GC22540@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 06:13:51 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Tt0IG7jr7D5PmyvZTQhOFpEDbnw Message-ID: <CAGfcS_=ydw2eUJuVnDNhoUHWdK=1nCEnneDQntO85xECmCU+Ww@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] With regard to udev stabilization From: Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: c62c59d3-481e-4b39-9db1-d6de03478698 X-Archives-Hash: be3e2d92e687ab563e1cff05c8296617 On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 4:12 AM, Fabian Groffen <grobian@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 14-11-2012 08:42:47 +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote: >> The stabilization of new udev shouldn't be delayed anymore. > > We reached a different conclusion yesterday. I think the end result of the council decision won't really involve further delay of things for udev. There are a few blockers to resolve still, so waiting another meeting will allow both efforts to continue to make progress, and then when we send out communications to users we can offer them all the viable options. The council isn't really introducing delay until everything is ready for udev to go stable other than the go-ahead to give users n days to migrate to a separate /usr solution. Rich