On 04/22/2012 05:28 AM, Steven J Long wrote: > Ulrich Mueller wrote: > >> | 3. New udev and separate /usr partition (30 minutes) >> | >> | See [4]: "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.)" >> | >> | [4] >> | [<http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo- > project/msg_c96d1b724cd736702820fa5ff1547557.xml> >> > From the first reply: > > "To clarify, the question is whether or not we support a separate /usr > _without_ mounting it early via an initramfs." > > I hope that settles that particular issue. >
Hmm... I see that in Zac's reply, thanks for that. Unfortunately, from what I can tell, that clarification was not actually part of the proposed agenda [5], nor was it directly referenced. So the subject of the vote still seems open to interpretation. Ultimately, the council's only "power" is to stop things from happening under threat of expulsion from the project. I think it would be a mistake for this particular council vote to be used as the sole justification for preventing devs from committing changes that would require an initramfs for separate /usr support. It simply does not seem clear enough for that. [5] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/msg_ac95bed78694852cd09f20a07437b805.xml
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
