On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés <can...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Michael Schreckenbauer <grim...@gmx.de> wrote: >> >> We already *have* the situation of not requiring initramfs for separate /usr. >> Mission accomplished. >> It's the upcoming change, that violates KISS. If udev cannot work properly >> with separate /usr, fix udev not the FS-hierarchy. What next? Put /home into >> initramfs, because udev decides it cannot work without /home mounted? > > Then don't upgrade. Keep doing only security updates.
And, eventually, those security updates will stop coming. Just pointing this out. >> It works now. > > Exactly, and if you don't upgrade, it will work as long as you want. See my remark on security updates not continuing indefinitely. >> Not listening to users is a very bad idea. > > No, they listen to users. They just don't listen too every user, > because that's impossible. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think your setup is > in the minority of use-cases. Who they should listen to? > >> You keep talking about "complainers". > > If someone complains and doesn't code, it's a complainer. By > definition. If someone complains and code, it's creating alternative > technologies. > >> I'd say, we discuss things, as do the >> gentoo-devs on their list. > > I agree. I'm subscribed to both. > >> Yeah, "probably", that's why we discuss things. > > Again, we can discuss (or complain) until the sun is red. As long as > we don't give code back, it's basically academic. This isn't a discussion. This is a bunch of people offering displeasure, ideas and/or thoughts, and one person saying, "hey, nothing I can do. I trust the devs." A discussion is when there's an interchange of ideas, arguments, counterarguments, and the fleshing out of a new framework of thought. That kind of point/counterpoint is *vital* for architectural foresight. All I keep reading from you is, "if you think that will work, go write it." *No* writing for a problem of this scope is warranted without some extensive discussion, noting of edge cases and planning around the same. People have been pointing out edge cases, use cases which are being disregarded, etc, and pretty much all they're getting back is "I don't see those as valid." Granted, you're kinda painting a target on your back by being the only one defending upstream's decision here, but when someone pointed at an already-existing alternative, you simply said, "I doubt that'll be the solution." As for me, this will be a royal inconvenience, and may require the rebuilding of my primary machine. Still, I can deal. It'll mean learning how to build initramfs*, how to make sure it contains the needed tools, and probably a half-dozen other things I didn't even see coming when I set up this box last fall. * I've avoided it for ten years it was a grossly unnecessary complexity for my systems. Now it sounds like it'll become a necessity. -- :wq
