FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 05-04-2012, 07:50 PM
Zac Medico
 
Default Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012

On 05/04/2012 08:20 AM, Steven J Long wrote:
> Zac Medico wrote:
>
>> On 04/22/2012 10:55 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>>> On 04/22/2012 05:28 AM, Steven J Long wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>
>> Yeah, it almost seems as though the council was being intentionally
>> vague and leaving things open to interpretation.
>
> Wow, man, never thought I'd see *you* weasel out of something like that
>
>> In response, we had
>> William post about the ">= udev-182 tracker" [1], to which Tony seemed
>> to respond positively [2].
>>
> That was about process to do with stabilisation. Of course having a tracker
> to monitor any issues is a positive step.
>
> It doesn't say anything at all about what the base requirement was, nor what
> was up for discussion at the meeting. You yourself clarified that it was
> about no initramfs as soon as it was raised to Council:

I *tried* to clarify it, but was apparently unsuccessful, since the
agenda item contained no mention of initramfs:

http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_2eaaf4a4e302bf0e6c20accaec61db82.xml

> that was the only
> thing that could cause a technical issue, specifically to users who have
> setup according to official documentation, requiring a policy decision.

I'm not so sure. The one question that really stood out for me was the
question of whether or not newer udev could be stabilized, since it
would be problematic for separate-/usr-without-initramfs systems.
--
Thanks,
Zac
 
Old 05-05-2012, 01:05 AM
Greg KH
 
Default Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012

On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 03:50:24PM +0100, Steven J Long wrote:
> >> To confirm again, that this is about without initramfs:
> >> <dberkholz> sure i can. maintain old udev-XXX forever, put an elog in new
> >> udev that says "if you want separate /usr without initramfs, install old
> >> udev, mask new, or whatever"
> >
> > systemd and udev are being merged into one tarball. For the
> > "foreseeable
> > future", it will still build 2 separate binaries. What happens down the
> > road if/when it all becomes one combined binary?
> >
> Well I've read assertions that it will be possible to build udev without
> systemd for distros and users who want it, and this is supposedly a firm
> commitment into the future. Then again, experience doesn't bode well for
> those kind of commitments.
>
> (It's much easier to introduce coupling between software in the same
> package. GregKH has also mooted a tightly-coupled "core" Linux distro, which
> afaict is the same reasoning as GnomeOS, and /that/ sounds like a
> clusterfsck waiting to happen.)

"mooted"?

And since when does having a set of tightly coupled base libraries and
systems that work well together somehow turn into "GnomeOS"? Reaching
like that is just foolish on your part.

greg k-h
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:04 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org