On 12/18/2012 01:45 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > 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 >
Our official documentation for LVM2 explicitly advised users to use such configurations. Dropping support now will break existing systems unnecessarily. Before anyone says to use a news item, let me say that publishing a news item to inform users that we decided to break their systems will not make it better.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
