On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:33 PM, Mick <michaelkintz...@gmail.com> wrote: > Unless I misunderstood this and referenced threads, all this agro is being > generated because udev devs decided to give primacy not to the linux fs and > prevailing FHS conventions, but their udev code and what may have been an easy > workaround for them? > > Given that I do not understand the ins and outs of udev, or the way gentoo and > upstream manage such proposals and ultimately accept changes, why don't gentoo > devs raise alternative options with the Fedora dev or who ever had this idea > upstream that udev code effort is more precious than all the workarounds > (initramfs, repartitioning, etc.) that some of us have to go through? > > The alternatives I've read so far that advocate the avoidance of the > imposition of an initramfs or merging /usr into / for the sake of a udev > design choice, seem more 'intelligent' to me - in a gentoo principle sort of > way. > > On the other hand, for a binary distro the udev dev approach would of course > seem less disruptive and therefore our small gentoo user base may need to > shout really loud to be heard. > > Do we get to vote on this?
Not really: you can vote with your feet and use another distro/operating system. But the choice is theirs. > Can we make a difference other than venting here > and in the forums? Yes: design and write a different system. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
