On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 01:35:55PM -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 12:03 PM, William Hubbs <willi...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 08:00:09AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 2:55 AM, Tony "Chainsaw" Vroon > >> <chain...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> > On Wed, 2012-12-26 at 22:01 -0600, William Hubbs wrote: > >> >> Actually, since ulm pointed out in another thread that the > >> >> council has not mandated that we support separate /usr without an > >> >> initramfs, I am re-considering this. > >> > > >> > So now that the /usr-merge steamroller can not break systems through > >> > udev, because an alternative now exists... another way must be found? > >> > That seems rather immature. > >> > What must be forked next to keep this working? openrc? > >> > >> Tend to agree, assuming it causes no additional work for package > >> maintainers. > > > > As I and others have said on this list a thousdand times, moving > > everything to /usr never had anything to do with systemd and udev. This > > is a completely separate topic. > > > > It has everything to do with udev if you (as the udev maintainer for > Gentoo) decide to put zero effort into keeping udev working with a > traditional split-/usr configuration. Although udev is only one > package of many, it is a pretty damn critical one.
As I said on another thread, there was a misunderstanding on my part about setting up udev. I am looking into fixing that with the next release, but I need to coordinate with systemd as well, so I thought it would be good to wait for 197 to be released, so again, this is not correct. William
pgpipNCBpHwXg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
