On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Tanstaafl <tansta...@libertytrek.org> wrote:
> On 2013-09-29 10:57 AM, Bruce Hill <da...@happypenguincomputers.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 10:20:49AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2013-09-28 8:30 AM, Bruce Hill <da...@happypenguincomputers.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This does not mean that on November 1 your system will not be able to
>>>> boot.
>>>> Its simply means that beginning November 1, Gentoo devs are not required
>>>> to
>>>> jump through hoops to make apps work on systems with /usr separate from
>>>> /.
>>>>
>>>> Now, what are you going to do? That's the question.
>>>
>>>
>>> This won't necessarily be the end of the worl, if, and ONLY if any and
>>> all ebuild mainteainers are REQUIRED to provide very large and scary
>>> warnings if they change something that will cause any systems with a
>>> separate /usr and NO initramfs to fail to boot.
>>
>>
>> The news item *IS* the warning.
>
>
> Oh for fucks sake... BULLSHIT.
>
> If an ebuild maintainer changes something that will BREAK BOOTING on systems
> that violate the 'no separate /usr without an initramfs' rule, what in the
> FUCK is the problem with requiring them to WARN PEOPLE?

The news item allows developers to assume that /usr is available from
early boot. Therefore, they *could* be breaking *some* setups, and
they will not even realize it. That is the beauty of having /usr
available from early boot: it frees developers from thinking in all
kind of different setups and combinations (it is on LVM? it uses raid?
what level? it's on NFS? do I need a special filesystem?), so they can
work in bringing more awesomeness into Gentoo.

They cannot put a warning if they don't know something will break
*some* setups. And the whole point of this is that they don't have to
consider every single possible combination of setups; the point is not
to force you to have an initramfs.

The point is to guarantee early /usr availability.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Reply via email to