On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 01:51:27PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote: > On 12/18/2012 01:45 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 07:50:51AM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > >>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012, William Hubbs wrote: > >> > >>> This all started with the April 2012 council meeting when it was > >>> pushed through that separate /usr without an initramfs is a > >>> supported configuration, so yes, the previous council started this > >>> issue. > >> > >> Sorry, but that's not an accurate account of what the council has > >> decided on. What we voted on in the April 2012 meeting was this: > >> > >> <ulm> The question is: "Decide on whether a separate /usr is still > >> a supported configuration." > > > > Ulrich, > > > > I have read the log, and that is where the confusion is. > > > > If that is true, and I think folks would beg to differ, we can say that > > the way separate /usr is supported is via requiring an initramfs and > > move forward from there because that would still be within the > > council's requirement since there is now documentation on how to build > > an initramfs. > > > > I know at least one council member who was at that meeting who would > > strongly disagree and say that what you voted for was that separate > > /usr, without an initramfs, is a supported configuration. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > William > > > > Our official documentation for LVM2 explicitly advised users to use such > configurations. Dropping support now will break existing systems > unnecessarily. > > Before anyone says to use a news item, let me say that publishing a news > item to inform users that we decided to break their systems will not > make it better.
I don't follow. The initramfs document [1] clearly points out that if you have lvm you have to include it when you run genkernel, and we can't move forward until a proper version of genkernel is stable. William [1] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/initramfs-guide.xml
pgphCRtt64DZx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
