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 12F891381F3 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 23:15:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 84E23E09C2; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 23:15:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ve0-f178.google.com (mail-ve0-f178.google.com [209.85.128.178]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E8EC2E09B8 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 23:15:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ve0-f178.google.com with SMTP id ox1so3100562veb.9 for ; Thu, 01 Aug 2013 16:15:57 -0700 (PDT) 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=c74Phn+hIkAm5JlKpplZlt5MenYchivibogBb5UpO9Y=; b=bN6Ar6WHiyWKcSsMeugFA0wH5ktCH5tZjaY3ZZ+iH2AS7P9P5yPF7eZCwc+KvNRXQq /M78tHBJedCh2XfhA2dcf8iNiwdzRf8OlZ8fjErT7MzD9ip0ZAq1pTvJAjTa87MC9Oah GkSTNlaNiCzAg13RwVLe5YO4drSn+4ei1a+rdsQkPvbfh02vVn5C+ZlZcSk0pSXN8aVH U+h051hBuR1rNeJcDwdkY08aPgCdFWrCyW+yvuvicwirkmF+H5zBR7i4niwDwR1pJb5u zNALWvnvd2aRnzvDabiIy1QeaqaqHD54zXfih03G8SFO3fLqf0rpa7a2SpzyfnJ0lm1J NK3w== 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 10.58.85.161 with SMTP id i1mr1155147vez.97.1375398957092; Thu, 01 Aug 2013 16:15:57 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.52.73.74 with HTTP; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 16:15:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20130801224933.GA32734@linux1> References: <20130801224933.GA32734@linux1> Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 19:15:57 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: NIyzN-A-X2iDzyajFGCvvgAkilE Message-ID: Subject: Re: [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: b41bfe88-3e98-4da2-a42d-e551678845d0 X-Archives-Hash: 7ef017aa5eecf9ee6d7bbb5ff25d0c90 On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 6:49 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > The whole reason I brought this up is, according to some, the council > did step in in April of 2012 and mandate that we must support separate > /usr without an early boot workaround. If you read the meeting log from > that meeting, it seems pretty clear that was chainsaw's intent. > > Because of that perception, if base-system decides to do something > differently, there would definitely be flack over it. I understand that completely. However, I'd only like to step in if base-system actually plans to do something and is concerned about there being flack over it. If they don't care to change anything then no action is needed. If they plan to change things but don't care about hearing people complain, then no action is needed. If I took action it would only be to tell them they can do whatever they want to as long as an initramfs still works (or whatever other workarounds people come up with) - I'd just prefer to only step in if somebody feels there is a need. Right now the only argument I'm hearing is that we need to clarify what the policy is because the policy is unclear and lack of clear policy bothers some people. I'm not hearing why we care about there being a policy in the first place. If somebody just states "I'm doing a lot of extra work because I feel like I have to, so please tell me that I don't have to" then I'm fine with stepping in. Rich