Adam Borowski writes: > I see that we're debating the merits of merged-usr vs non-merged-usr, while > expending lots of effort and filing bugs (requiring further urgent action of > unrelated maintainers), for little gain.
There is no "urgent action" required (unlike, say, for the last glibc update). If you don't want support for merged-/usr, could you please discuss this back in 2016 or before that? Also I feel a general discussion would probably just be too long-winded and touch too many unrelated issues; there is not even a terse list of claimed problems. It is very demotivating to have discussed and implemented something mostly years ago, for people then to come and complain "let's not do this at all" years later. Maybe we should also revisit Multi-Arch now that we know that `Multi-Arch: foreign` relations as implemented can result in non-booting systems... Or really revisit the init system question before people file bugs that require further urgent action for little gain (it's probably too late in the release cycle to push in elogind anyway). There is also the question if it is still worth to spend maintainer efforts to ship sysvinit scripts if this means we lose the advantages of declarative service files (which means far more work than merged-/usr changes)... We could also open a tech-ctte bug for secure boot before I spend any more time on it (there are still a few things). Luckily having this discussion delays me spending time on the remaining things I wanted to look at, so at least not more time is wasted. (Not that I currently have too much time for Debian anyway, and secure boot is quite a lot of work for something I don't need...) Ansgar