On 29/04/12 15:40, Zac Medico wrote:
> Maybe it's reasonable for the initramfs to utilize a config file from
> /etc of the future root filesystem, but having in depend on files from
> the future /usr seems like a strange idea. Wouldn't it make more sense
> to bundle all dependencies into the initra
On 04/29/2012 12:04 AM, Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 28/04/12 23:44, Michał Górny wrote:
>> I have already opened bugs for many of them. But the list will increase
>> in time, and we'll either move a lot of libraries to /lib* or decide to
>> go the other way.
>
> repeat after me EARLY BOOT, as in init
On 28/04/12 23:44, Michał Górny wrote:
> I have already opened bugs for many of them. But the list will increase
> in time, and we'll either move a lot of libraries to /lib* or decide to
> go the other way.
repeat after me EARLY BOOT, as in initramfs. In initramfs you don't have
/usr with everythi
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 16:44:57 -0700
Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 10/04/12 11:45, William Hubbs wrote:
> > There are binaries in /{bin,sbin} which link against libraries in
> > /usr/lib for example.
>
> We could try to have an exact list and figure out exactly what is it
> and how impacting it is. If
On 10/04/12 11:45, William Hubbs wrote:
> Also, I am going to reiterate what Greg said. This is not an issue with
> udev, but with the entire linux ecosystem.
As in bluez using dbus and some mount helpers requiring libraries in /usr.
> There are binaries in /{bin,sbin} which link against librarie
On 04/22/2012 10:55 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On 04/22/2012 05:28 AM, Steven J Long wrote:
>> Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>
>>> | 3. New udev and separate /usr partition (30 minutes)
>>> |
>>> |See [4]: "Decide on whether a separate /usr is still a supported
>>> |configuration. If it is, newer
On 04/22/2012 05:28 AM, Steven J Long wrote:
> Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
>> | 3. New udev and separate /usr partition (30 minutes)
>> |
>> |See [4]: "Decide on whether a separate /usr is still a supported
>> |configuration. If it is, newer udev can not be stabled and
>> |alternatives sh
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> | 3. New udev and separate /usr partition (30 minutes)
> |
> |See [4]: "Decide on whether a separate /usr is still a supported
> |configuration. If it is, newer udev can not be stabled and
> |alternatives should be investigated. If it isn't, a lot of
> |doc
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 13:45:04 -0500
William Hubbs wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 03:04:22PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 04:30:01PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > New udev and separate /usr partition
> > >
> > > Decide on whether a se
On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 03:04:22PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 04:30:01PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > New udev and separate /usr partition
> >
> > Decide on whether a separate /usr is still a supported configuration.
> > If it is, newer
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 04:30:01PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> The council has voted in favour of a separate /usr being supported
>> (5 yes, 1 no vote).
>
> What?
Perhaps the council should be the ones to clarify, but I think the
vote only was
On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 04:30:01PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> New udev and separate /usr partition
>
> Decide on whether a separate /usr is still a supported configuration.
> If it is, newer udev can not be stabled and alternatives should be
> investigated.
12 matches
Mail list logo
