On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 01:28:00PM -0600, William Hubbs wrote: > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 02:05:27PM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA256 > > > > On 14/12/12 01:28 PM, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 11:43:41AM +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote: > > >> Handling separate /usr support ============================== > > >> After the discussion on [1] during the previous meeting, a delay > > >> of one month due to a new fork of udev was requested. We need an > > >> update on what's happened. > > >> > > >> Chainsaw reported udev and eudev have moved on, and for both it > > >> is now possible to have a separate /usr. The follow-up > > >> discussion related to the /usr-merge is necessary. > > > > > > udev was never the problem of having a separate /usr without an > > > initrd. Have all of the other packages been properly fixed to > > > resolve this issue correctly? > > > > > > Also, what's the plan for eudev going forward? > > > > > > > > > Eudev's project announcement is coming soon, should answer your questions. > > > > In terms of udev's dependencies, yes, the few dependencies that were > > installing only to /usr (ie, kmod and xz-utils) have been switched to > > install to /, and then fixed again due to issues with they way they > > were done the first time so that they also work. I believe however > > they are still ~arch keyworded. > > > > There may of course be other entirely independent packages needed at > > boot time prior to localmount, I do not know that status of those. > > Once eudev (the gentoo package) fully supports separate-/usr (which it > > doesn't at this time as it uses the same init scripts as udev-196), we > > will be sure to resolve them. > > > > It should be noted that sys-fs/udev (the package) since .. 186 I > > think? whichever version dropped support for the failed-rules queue > > (and whichever package dropped the udev-postmount init script) does > > not support booting with a separate /usr. This has more to do with > > how the package installs than the upstream code itself, though; as > > such (WilliamH please correct me if I'm wrong) the plan is still to > > require an initramfs if using sys-fs/udev with a separate-/usr. > > Greg, can you write back to this message with specific examples of what > would need to be customized so that separate /usr would work right > without an initramfs? I have tried to explain multiple times that this > is a mis-conception that udev caused it, but I am getting nowhere.
It's not my job to do this, nor yours, or fix any of these issues. It's up to the people who wish to keep a separate /usr partition without an initramfs to do this work. greg k-h
