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 1R4J7e-0002I7-9r for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 21:05:27 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5BF9721C366; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 21:04:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ew0-f53.google.com (mail-ew0-f53.google.com [209.85.215.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F047221C35A for ; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 21:01:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ewy8 with SMTP id 8so1915951ewy.12 for ; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 14:01:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3mXjcMn5nZ+qsAT0coMvdDdTa2yg4ZzJ0C8VVFW55kY=; b=uudzbQ1oWb3S6EfOo/ksQUR0PHJ8Kq/wVc9RmhZI5jsdpEK3SXIsXfDFuwUsHEaBC5 n9BUMoORe+4TL0E4yVLeGeLi3wzO0T8xl0uEozEFCHvOzwqfMSASJCf7uFCQXGar4fx8 oHvHgQQUssmg/HK1b6ShljCs+gFkLesCQR3qg= 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 Received: by 10.204.133.130 with SMTP id f2mr894928bkt.310.1316120508708; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 14:01:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.155.79 with HTTP; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 14:01:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1720176.jW0GbpkhUk@platypus> References: <20110912150248.GB3599@acm.acm> <4E70F448.8060500@gmail.com> <1720176.jW0GbpkhUk@platypus> Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 17:01:48 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] udev + /usr From: Michael Mol To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: e246596f540e39e6defe6b9905a15a94 On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Mike Edenfield wrote: > On Wednesday, September 14, 2011 01:36:56 PM Dale wrote: >> Canek Pel=C3=A1ez Vald=C3=A9s wrote: > >> > But that's the thing: we (you and me) don't see the situation the same >> > way. To me, the proposed changes are for the better. >> >> You are one of very few that feel this way. > > You are probably correct that he's one of the relatively few people (alon= g > with the udev developer, and those few people for whom it will fix their > problems) who think these changes are a real improvement. > > I would estimate that the vast, vast, vast majority of users are those su= ch as > myslelf, who have no opinion whatsoever, and either will not be affected = at all > by these changes (because they don't separate / and /usr), or will simply > apply the proposed initramfs solution and move on. > > Then there are those relatively few people, such as the handful making up= the > rest of this thread, who think that these changes are a horrible idea and= will > have a severe deterimental affect on their systems. > > Not that the relative "size" of the various sides in this debate is reall= y the > issue, but despite the tone of this and the other thread, I don't think > there's really a huge, overwhelming outcry against these changes. My complaints are chiefly philosophical; it's not a correct solution, because the problems it purports to fix will just re-emerge down the road. I'm all in favor of well-architected systems and good, sound, informed discussion. I've only been involved in this thread as much as I have been because there's been a dearth of such in it. --=20 :wq