Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 1:28 AM, Steven J Long wrote: >> And again, I ask: if it were *not* about running udev without an >> initramfs, then why would anyone even be discussing the possibility of >> patching or forking? >> > > Here is my interpretation: the council voted on the following question: > > <ulm> The question is: "Decide on whether a separate /usr is still a > supported > configuration." > > It did not decide the method that would be used to accomplish this. A > few council members (Chainsaw mainly) expressed a desire to do it > without an initramfs, but an official stance on this was not put > forward. > While I agree it would be better if the vote had specified "without an initramfs" it seems clear to me that that was what was under discussion, since a) Chainsaw was asked to describe the issue and specifically turned down an initramfs, and b) udev with an initramfs already supports a separate /usr partition, so why would the Council need to vote on it?
It's already supported if you use an initramfs, so there isn't anything to discuss, nor vote on as technical policy. > You are reading into it more that you should. Well two of the votes specifically mention initramfs: <Betelgeuse> As long as there is no automated help for people to automatically get initramfs I vote yes <hwoarang> i vote no, because diverting from upstream is not an ideal option for me If it were not about supporting users without an initramfs, why would a yes vote mean diverging from upstream? At this point, I'd like the Council to clarify. I really don't see what else could have required a vote, and the whole discussion was about not using an initramfs, who would maintain any patches needed, and what the potential consequences might be. -- #friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)
