Am Mittwoch, 25. September 2013, 11:39:20 schrieb Ian Stakenvicius: > On 25/09/13 11:27 AM, Sven Eden wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, 25. September 2013, 11:05:24 schrieb Ian > > > > Stakenvicius: > >> On 25/09/13 10:51 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > >>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Ian Stakenvicius > >>> <a...@gentoo.org> > >>> > >>> wrote: > >>>> William, I think what Tom was mentioning here is that he > >>>> thinks a one-sentence answering the "Why" would be a good > >>>> idea to have in the news item, so users that don't have a > >>>> clue on all of these sep-/usr issues will get an idea of why > >>>> the change is being made. > >>> > >>> How about something like: Due to many upstream changes > >>> properly supporting a separate /usr without an initramfs has > >>> become increasingly difficult - despite all our efforts it > >>> already breaks in some exotic configurations, and this is a > >>> trend likely to grow worse. > >>> > >>> Rich > >> > >> How about changing "[properly] supporting a separate /usr without > >> an initramfs" to "supporting a system with /usr missing at boot > >> time" ? More generic, indicates the actual problem better. > >> Otherwise sounds great to me. > > > > Maybe some links to articles that explain *why* the so called > > "UsrMerge" was needed/done would be a good idea. > > This isn't UsrMerge tho. I think bring that discussion into the news > item would probably be going too far beyond its intended scope.
Yes, of course. It is just that the mentioned upstream changes are because of the merge, meaning boot relevant stuff is installed in /usr instead of /. > > [ Snip the rest ] > > Documentation suggesting a separate /usr isn't necessary (or rather, > probably, is only necessary for certain things, like /usr-on-NFS or > LVM-without-ROOT or crypto-/usr ) does make sense in general but > probably that discussion would be better done in the Handbook (or > linked to by the Handbook) rather than in the news item. Yes, maybe the references about why upstream did/does change belongs on a wiki page or something like that.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
