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 383C91381F3 for ; Sun, 29 Sep 2013 19:11:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9854EE0EA1; Sun, 29 Sep 2013 19:11:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-oa0-f52.google.com (mail-oa0-f52.google.com [209.85.219.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CCFDE0E8B for ; Sun, 29 Sep 2013 19:11:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oa0-f52.google.com with SMTP id n2so3388756oag.11 for ; Sun, 29 Sep 2013 12:11:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=zIIXCpWmpxOZbS94RbuGJKegnUQqxfjYvraJ8MmLQ3A=; b=GqKK6Ipo6g4U8AdZ9xbluDWuhLYtOEhcX40wHCJj7g509UNltPwN9jQbFomJi7IJca fdR8AEJBbZKxjz5dhsTqfeScH6tS/89051HZyC8BYxlasJoWClZTl1nW9WTKaoXns0Qj jBWD8ySszy1+tw3snHQvTau6WRXJZTsqfu7Si58WbP9bRSOSm29GrTlvLOKa9eW+J5x7 GvrW2I/y9XUJcIEuBia5R+8gBix4mPp4TSrXU8ptI7RP6Fp+1Qea4dGSH1xtjU4+3O/n k0Tzg2jPZDYtmutDF8UAGzLY1EP8TQpB1eC7sH9AxgwyrJlappECgOm6wQvSDAwXd3mY qBHw== X-Received: by 10.182.81.41 with SMTP id w9mr16419228obx.18.1380481891800; Sun, 29 Sep 2013 12:11:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from linux1 (cpe-76-187-91-128.tx.res.rr.com. [76.187.91.128]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id r3sm31771753oep.2.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 29 Sep 2013 12:11:30 -0700 (PDT) Sender: William Hubbs Received: by linux1 (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 29 Sep 2013 14:11:28 -0500 Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 14:11:28 -0500 From: William Hubbs To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01 Message-ID: <20130929191128.GB16543@linux1> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org References: <20130927222109.GD23408@server> <5246079E.7090406@gmail.com> <20130927223916.GE23408@server> <52460D42.2080109@gmail.com> <20130928003220.GF23408@server> <20130928160159.GA4247@linux1> <20130928190441.GB11317@acm.acm> <20130928211702.46eda062@digimed.co.uk> <52486A5D.1020402@libertytrek.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="MW5yreqqjyrRcusr" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: a67a0b4f-4b27-4ce7-a973-962fc225541a X-Archives-Hash: 69fc1d8531112f4fc7f3ab7d570d0091 --MW5yreqqjyrRcusr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 01:21:30PM -0500, Canek Pel=E1ez Vald=E9s wrote: > On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Tanstaafl w= rote: > > On 2013-09-28 4:17 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote: > >> > >> On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 19:04:41 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > >> > >>>> I suppose that what I am about to say isn't really relevant, but it = is > >>>> unfortunate over the past year that people blamed udev specifically > >>>> for this. It is true that it does things that don't work if /usr isn= 't > >>>> mounted, but eudev does as well, since it is basically the same code. > >>> > >>> > >>> Who else is there to blame? We are continually being told that a > >>> separate /usr is "broken", as though this were some unfortunate act of > >>> , much like an earthquake. This gets > >>> patronising really quickly. (Please note, I'm NOT blaming you here. = I > >>> appreciate that you're as much victim as Dale or me or anyone else > >>> round here.) > >> > >> > >> It's evolution. Linux has for years been moving in this direction, now= it > >> has reached the point where the Gentoo devs can no longer devote the > >> increasing time needed to support what has now become an dge case. > > > > > > So the solution is to give users one MONTH to prepare? Why not 6 months= , or > > better, a year? What for gods sake is the rush??? > > > > Where are the links/pointers to the INTERNAL discussions of this decisi= on? I > > seriously want to know. If gentoo devs are not willing to provide a 'pa= per > > trail' for how this decision was arrived at, and let others judge their > > decisions based on the merits of their arguments, then what does that s= ay > > about their true motivations/intentions? >=20 > The discussion happened in [1], [2], and [3]. And in similar meetings > and mailing lists since months ago. >=20 > [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/2946 > [2] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20130924.txt > [3] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/88282 You forgot [4]. [4] http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/235575 I was actually against it initially. After reading and understanding where the linux ecosystem is going, my position evolved to support it. William --MW5yreqqjyrRcusr Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlJIe2AACgkQblQW9DDEZTiBgACgqPtMWKRi+ApBpU1Idawaubri LJwAoLNsHue0Ruzm+/0p8qjGM3GSYi5L =Umkr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --MW5yreqqjyrRcusr--