On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 1:45 PM, William Hubbs <willi...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 07:50:51AM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> >>>>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012, William Hubbs wrote: >> >> > This all started with the April 2012 council meeting when it was >> > pushed through that separate /usr without an initramfs is a >> > supported configuration, so yes, the previous council started this >> > issue. >> >> Sorry, but that's not an accurate account of what the council has >> decided on. What we voted on in the April 2012 meeting was this: >> >> <ulm> The question is: "Decide on whether a separate /usr is still >> a supported configuration." > > I know at least one council member who was at that meeting who would > strongly disagree and say that what you voted for was that separate > /usr, without an initramfs, is a supported configuration.
Does it really matter? We're arguing over what the council decided six months ago, and they never really took a clear vote (I see lots of discussion, and no motion followed by aye/nay's). I would certainly recommend in the future that if the Council wants to set some kind of policy that they make a clear statement of the policy followed by a simple yes/no vote. However, there is little value in going back over that particular decision. This whole thread really seems like a major waste of hot air. Does it really matter whether udev supports a separate /usr or not? If your system works, then good for you. If it doesn't work, then install an initramfs, or use something other than udev, and if that fixes your probably great. Just don't talk about it here, or you'll have 400 people telling you that you're wrong. If you think that eudev is a big waste of time, then don't use it. Rich
