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 > > issue. > > 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." Ulrich,
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. Thoughts? William
pgpqbJ1r810A0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
