On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 04:30:01PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > New udev and separate /usr partition > ==================================== > Decide on whether a separate /usr is still a supported configuration. > If it is, newer udev can not be stabled and alternatives should be > investigated. If it isn't, a lot of documentation will have to be > updated. (And an alternative should likely still be provided.) > > The council has voted in favour of a separate /usr being supported > (5 yes, 1 no vote).
What? > During the discussion, some concerns were raised that we might not be > able to provide a modified or forked udev version. Chainsaw assured > that if necessary, he will maintain a udev version that supports said > configuration. It isn't udev that is the problem here, it's the loads of other packages. udev is just being "nice" and pointing out that the user has a problem. > It was remarked that a solution that comprises both the forked udev > version (separate /usr) and the latest versions is possible and > therefore should not block either way preferred by users. How in the world are you going to support this type of thing, when it isn't udev that is the issue? And udev isn't even the problem, all you need is to mount your /usr from initramfs. So, the original proposal wasn't even a correct/valid proposal in the first place. Papering over the issue, by just keeping udev from reporting the problem is NOT a valid solution. You are shooting the messenger here. greg k-h
