|| ||Richard Yao <ryao-AT-gentoo.org> |
|| ||gentoo-dev-AT-lists.gentoo.org |
|| ||Re: Re: eudev project announcement |
|| ||Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:51:27 -0500|
|| ||Article, Thread
On 12/18/2012 01:45 PM, William Hubbs 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
>> 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 have read the log, and that is where the confusion is.
> If that is true, and I think folks would beg to differ, we can say that
> the way separate /usr is supported is via requiring an initramfs and
> move forward from there because that would still be within the
> council's requirement since there is now documentation on how to build
> an initramfs.
> 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.
Our official documentation for LVM2 explicitly advised users to use such
configurations. Dropping support now will break existing systems
Before anyone says to use a news item, let me say that publishing a news
item to inform users that we decided to break their systems will not
make it better.
to post comments)