On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 09:36:56PM +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Friday, April 1, 2016 8:33:02 PM CEST, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On 01 Apr 2016 20:00, Alexis Ballier wrote: > >> On Friday, April 1, 2016 3:58:18 AM CEST, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >>>> ... > >>> "being supported" != "enabled by default". so no, i still don't see any > >>> requirement in anything you've cited that this be turned on > >>> by default. ... > >> > >> you're right, but you know, before you claimed the contrary of what was > >> voted and then decided to argue whether a 4 years old council decision > >> applies or not here, my point was, and still is, that such council > >> decisions make me think you're confusing what *you* want and > >> what *we* (as > >> a project) want for this case > > > > i see no significant number of people clamoring for this as the default. > > the bug that started this has everyone on board for changing the default. > > yes; I also tend to think fedora's usr move is what makes most sense > nowadays, but that'd go against council
No, it wouldn't. We made a decision in 2013 (I'll have to find it) that separate /usr should only be supported via initramfs; there is also a news item warning that if you are not using initramfs and you have separate /usr your system will be unbootable in the future. > > > it's really no different either from the install process today: a stage3 > > cannot be unpacked & booted directly. a user must configure it before it > > can actually be used. if that means enabling USE=sep-usr, then so be it. > > except it adds yet another step > > > there's no reason to force this legacy behavior on the majority of people > > when a split-/usr is uncommon. > > what's the reason not to force it? saving 10kb from ldscripts out of a 1Gb > typical desktop install ? doesnt seem like a reason for disabling it either >
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
