On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 03:55:51PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > AFAICT the original posting in this thread is from someone who is > trying to make it easier and more automatic to try to produce Debian > installations which do not have a /usr vs / distinction. I think a lot of heat in this thread is due to people completely forgetting that is what this was about.
> What is causing all the heat is the suggestion that support might be > withdrawn for currently working configurations which _do_ have a /usr > vs / distinction, or which do mount /usr using / rather than > initramfs, or some such. Which actually was never proposed. There were some "what if" type posts, but noone was mandating a merged /usr anywhere. > It seems to me that enough people want Debian to retain the > flexibility which is gained by the /usr vs / division, that we as a > project should continue to provide it. It would probably be a good idea to gather all of these use-cases and put them into the wiki under or linked to the usrmerge entry. I've seen a lot of "what about situation X" type emails in this thread with replies with "fixed with solution Y" or "not a /usr merge specific problem". Some of those would be useful to those people who have the same situation. It would also mean that any situation that hasn't got a solution is well-known. > That does not mean that every user has to have a separate /usr or that > /usr can't be mounted by the default initramfs. It does mean that > package maintainers need to continue to place files in / or /usr as > appropriate, respond approprately to reasonable bug reports, etc. So the idea would be, at this stage. 1) People who want a merged /usr install the usrmerge package 2) Package maintainers would still install in /usr/bin or /bin etc - Craig -- Craig Small (@smallsees) http://enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/ csmall at : debian.org GPG fingerprint: 5D2F B320 B825 D939 04D2 0519 3938 F96B DF50 FEA5