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 1514A1381F3 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 21:16:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6B612E0A81; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 21:16:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ve0-f179.google.com (mail-ve0-f179.google.com [209.85.128.179]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDA12E0A72 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 21:16:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ve0-f179.google.com with SMTP id c13so2929298vea.24 for ; Thu, 01 Aug 2013 14:16:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=yHuLbTLXWrikqNo4zZ0yBjeVGM4ZwBLMA0KS/8KatNM=; b=nEaeERWzXCOtVkdh9oBQOrc8kpRfkglzAWcfno7Lo2OW56i/gHg0GrX2vGLVfghqsn mlThbTAHOBawz+KI4e7gFe848L7xuSEJQ5Jonq0nTzN/m3ilZBc+9jxjN4TbktZLGZsm mW3AROmOLlkHZFfbloWWUrPO7X/fSxME3bIJ7qoAsG57flt+G7EGpd9qgUeUy3Sel32T ybiTm8W8vzSApkoHWw9TXQoNZt6vw6bnrorvXHx5umvGqIO53msxkpj4jsp+GFMRBd8W ExXrrXQthdlqVl5QM+h8s+bGQUEwKxCJqeyBZrxeBAKiDjiGScV9wlLZ/y7nlw4R2M6z edgw== 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 X-Received: by 10.58.202.1 with SMTP id ke1mr1046661vec.85.1375391786912; Thu, 01 Aug 2013 14:16:26 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.52.73.74 with HTTP; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 14:16:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 17:16:26 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Eq53DwUfPYCUKsAFo0IVaYGJeFk Message-ID: Subject: [gentoo-project] Support for Seperate /usr From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: 9ef811e2-824d-40b7-9e63-1090b6d54718 X-Archives-Hash: 8b4f9705ba52fc2f0c33f2a9db6b4891 Splitting thread so that the agenda thread isn't lost in discussion: On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > 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. I tend to loosely agree here. My inclination right now is to support this proposal if either of the following is true: 1. Somebody explains that right now the absence of a decision is causing them actual problems (extra work, limitations, whatever). 2. This becomes necessary to enable some larger long-term goal, which has received council approval. #2 was basically covered by Alexis already. Regarding #1, I informally emailed the base-system maintainers a week ago about whether there was any need to revisit last year's decision. I didn't really get a sense that anybody really needed the council to step in now. I recognize that William is also a base-system maintainer so if he wants to state that he is subject to some kind of extra work or such supporting separate /usr without an early boot workaround I'll certainly be sympathetic. I do favor the dropping of support for separate /usr without an early boot workaround. I just don't think the council should actually step in until somebody needs us to, or as part of some larger plan. If the base-system maintainers have things under control, better to let them handle it. Rich