From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1SASgi-00023U-NC for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 21:03:21 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 50414E0B14 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 21:03:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bk0-f53.google.com (mail-bk0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7001BE0952 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 19:31:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bkwj4 with SMTP id j4so1353124bkw.40 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 12:31:40 -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=ZQMlMNsgpS3d9feCqjKQcpq+tczU4tnFUHhvby6dlnw=; b=yAEsuWeqyS4Wh0mZinseNXxAu+GtdG/1z4TpuODXS5T911egG32fmPDN6uEwntKVm9 FztVk2VzTsu8QKSAJXRjr5iHZ29lV07PlxpDYrSr6Vtuwo3VaMBqeiz/IzHYdG6Khx7k rIH03xWxYnOgujGYi+ryJzbxrLHDOBG4fIH+EW+ETrgVOZEdU8wWSE6jaxv2FTxUylWs hKxTFVjsed0beSjXi1OVEv38AP0N+94VZbUnGUHa9URH/HUbo4RGESC9nwyHmoWq+cU3 fXtrU6vhmGVaySRKsWEK28pjFIAPKWlrA9W9VuKKyALubVKS9hfqQ36+fom3wdMTnSNj HUzg== 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 Received: by 10.205.130.1 with SMTP id hk1mr2027402bkc.51.1332358300487; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 12:31:40 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.205.65.206 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 12:31:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4F6A19FD.6020209@gentoo.org> References: <20328.10318.193096.854402@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <4F68689E.1000103@gentoo.org> <4F6A19FD.6020209@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 15:31:40 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: SMv4EfLNnoTdlgQW_9xWSiA-49M Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2012-04-03 From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: 9a38e618-3958-4e02-87da-6e0fc01ff6f7 X-Archives-Hash: 67d74f7bdce90efa20f52d7bdc74b7cf On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Zac Medico wrote: > On 03/20/2012 04:23 AM, Tony "Chainsaw" Vroon wrote: > >> If it is, newer udev can not be stabled and alternatives should be >> investigated. > > A possible compromise would be to use pkg_pretend to check if /usr is a > mount point, and die if the user hasn't set a variable or a USE flag to > indicate awareness that /usr must be mounted early. I'm avoiding commenting redundant with the whole previous email chain, but I don't really see this as anything other than a mitigation during some temporary migration period. That is, unless you want to keep udev-171 in the tree for the next 15 years or until the default is some other replacement without this limitation. Unless somebody is actually willing to maintain a robust alternative I don't really see that as a real option. If upstream moves in one direction, and nobody is willing to maintain things in a different state, then you just end up with a system package that nobody wants to use, and something in an overlay that everybody uses instead that is beyond these debates. You can't effectively mandate that people maintain something in a volunteer organization, unless the effort involved is very minor. The Council can of course lend moral support to a particular direction, but Gentoo will only get there if somebody writes the code. Right now I don't see anybody maintaining a robust /usr-less udev fork yet. If one existed the Council could easily make one vs the other default, or ask to have it in the handbook, etc. > >> If it isn't, a lot of documentation will have to be >> updated. (And an alternative should likely still be provided) I'd say that quite a bit of documentation needs to be updated before udev is stabilized in any case. Rich