From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-user+bounces-151056-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE7991381F3
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Sun, 29 Sep 2013 17:41:47 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 72392E0C79;
Sun, 29 Sep 2013 17:41:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-lb0-f174.google.com (mail-lb0-f174.google.com [209.85.217.174])
(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34FDCE0A5F
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 29 Sep 2013 17:41:31 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-lb0-f174.google.com with SMTP id w6so3712344lbh.5
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 29 Sep 2013 10:41:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=NYbn6mmhazkSlkpWYWD5CBjYD45X10A2bWo0VlHiWek=;
b=XNjMcilz0LnWFwTs4nNHs1rlIj/BikggbGVPdbDuvgr6fAlA0dW4QoxroRM8cXyloD
dFp27YokQ1nqEmF1RM5ODQOPJCJ8x3FuRKw7oumj8cPJI5EPMwiPBbPfkK4FJqpFJnwF
jO4g9JWqT7M43anpz5wnc3+1NWTs7mx6KEwbjqGBe0a+OJFQm3A9yn8PXlimFyGgXsn8
wL7zEdveqZqCKXlpMH7BR/CAye9TfTPW27SrNgvHUp4iHWB4x/D5XsmlpBWjVrTqZ4qH
NyWGKg+cWMcK1iveQQLI1JDH9NoISKb8Ygwcrh+bi+VfR7faKbGJ6Pmrg597NGYYOKfy
zE+w==
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.45.106 with SMTP id l10mr16330476lam.12.1380476490462;
Sun, 29 Sep 2013 10:41:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.114.96.2 with HTTP; Sun, 29 Sep 2013 10:41:30 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <52486249.60904@libertytrek.org>
References: <20130927222109.GD23408@server>
<5246079E.7090406@gmail.com>
<20130927223916.GE23408@server>
<52460D42.2080109@gmail.com>
<52461056.9020604@gmail.com>
<52469659.8040003@gmail.com>
<20130928123045.GG23408@server>
<52483741.8000806@libertytrek.org>
<20130929145710.GN23408@server>
<52486249.60904@libertytrek.org>
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 12:41:30 -0500
Message-ID: <CADPrc80Xx+VnZY_jOWKmVDLQMvvhgPZ1k0psuObsfYA76nOMKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
From: =?UTF-8?B?Q2FuZWsgUGVsw6FleiBWYWxkw6lz?= <caneko@gmail.com>
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Archives-Salt: 921ba94e-3368-4aa2-b67d-714eee5ebb58
X-Archives-Hash: 0d733ce1a4a2767e2f8fe2e26776ebdf
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org> wro=
te:
> On 2013-09-29 10:57 AM, Bruce Hill <daddy@happypenguincomputers.com> wrot=
e:
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 10:20:49AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2013-09-28 8:30 AM, Bruce Hill <daddy@happypenguincomputers.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This does not mean that on November 1 your system will not be able to
>>>> boot.
>>>> Its simply means that beginning November 1, Gentoo devs are not requir=
ed
>>>> to
>>>> jump through hoops to make apps work on systems with /usr separate fro=
m
>>>> /.
>>>>
>>>> Now, what are you going to do? That's the question.
>>>
>>>
>>> This won't necessarily be the end of the worl, if, and ONLY if any and
>>> all ebuild mainteainers are REQUIRED to provide very large and scary
>>> warnings if they change something that will cause any systems with a
>>> separate /usr and NO initramfs to fail to boot.
>>
>>
>> The news item *IS* the warning.
>
>
> Oh for fucks sake... BULLSHIT.
>
> If an ebuild maintainer changes something that will BREAK BOOTING on syst=
ems
> that violate the 'no separate /usr without an initramfs' rule, what in th=
e
> FUCK is the problem with requiring them to WARN PEOPLE?
The news item allows developers to assume that /usr is available from
early boot. Therefore, they *could* be breaking *some* setups, and
they will not even realize it. That is the beauty of having /usr
available from early boot: it frees developers from thinking in all
kind of different setups and combinations (it is on LVM? it uses raid?
what level? it's on NFS? do I need a special filesystem?), so they can
work in bringing more awesomeness into Gentoo.
They cannot put a warning if they don't know something will break
*some* setups. And the whole point of this is that they don't have to
consider every single possible combination of setups; the point is not
to force you to have an initramfs.
The point is to guarantee early /usr availability.
Regards.
--=20
Canek Pel=C3=A1ez Vald=C3=A9s
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingenier=C3=ADa de la Computaci=C3=B3n
Universidad Nacional Aut=C3=B3noma de M=C3=A9xico