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 , 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" , to which Tony seemed
>> to respond positively .
> 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:
> 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.