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 BE7991381F3 for ; 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 ; Sun, 29 Sep 2013 17:41:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lb0-f174.google.com with SMTP id w6so3712344lbh.5 for ; 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: 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 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: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01 From: =?UTF-8?B?Q2FuZWsgUGVsw6FleiBWYWxkw6lz?= 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 wro= te: > On 2013-09-29 10:57 AM, Bruce Hill wrot= e: >> >> On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 10:20:49AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: >>> >>> On 2013-09-28 8:30 AM, Bruce Hill >>> 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