-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 William Hubbs schrieb: > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 02:55:49AM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: >> Makes me wonder if the "Why?" question should be left unanswered; >> I'm also not quite sure if we can produce a short answer, can the >> actual problem be summarized in one short clear sentence at all? > > I will try, but not in this thread. I want this thread to stay > focused on the news item.
William, I think what Tom was mentioning here is that he thinks a one-sentence answering the "Why" would be a good idea to have in the news item, so users that don't have a clue on all of these sep-/usr issues will get an idea of why the change is being made. On 25/09/13 04:06 AM, Thomas Sachau wrote: > > What about busybox[sep-usr]? Is that still supported or is > everyone with separate /usr forced to use an initramfs? > My interpretation of the various Council votes on the matter is that it's not "officially" supported, but the busybox'ers I expect will continue to provide this avenue. Even though the "official"ness of support is being dropped, this doesn't mean it won't work for various configurations; as far as I've been able to tell, this all just means gentoo dev's are now allowed to treat bugs related to failures from a /usr not being mounted at bootup as RESO/INVALID. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlJC7pwACgkQ2ugaI38ACPC76AD9EHQXzywD4CPWOh9Pjv4nZQ6V LViekn/0Jv3LdD9RPzgA/0OF4oZtBwxvTPPTsjy65v140/TtVam7dKtlKHTZ285k =ZxJe -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
