El lun, 29-07-2013 a las 21:07 -0400, Rich Freeman escribió: > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:01 PM, Dustin C. Hatch <admiraln...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I think the point is that users may have an initramfs (that they built > > manually or using some tool besides dracut or genkernel) that makes use of > > cryptsetup/lvm2 built statically, or perhaps they just like it that way, so > > why take away that ability and make them change? > > Presumably because it is harder to maintain? If somebody wants to > maintain (proxy or otherwise) the needed changes to support the static > USE flag my opinion is that they should be able to do so. They would > need to be responsive on bugs/etc and not be a burden on the other > maintainers. > > However, if nobody wants to step up and do the work, then those who > are doing the work basically get the last word in how it gets done. > That's just how things roll around here. > > Besides, you could make the same argument about every binary in > /(s)bin. Initramfs builders manage to deal with a dynamically-linked > bash, so they should be able to handle lvm+cryptsetup. > > Rich > >
It also causes some problems (some of them broke during udev updated from, for example, 200 to 204): https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=lvm2% 20static&list_id=1914334 https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=cryptsetup% 20static&list_id=1914332
