On Sun, 2019-02-24 at 09:23:14 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >>>>> "Guillem" == Guillem Jover <guil...@debian.org> writes:
> Guillem> On Sun, 2019-02-24 at 08:27:20 +0100, Ansgar wrote:
> >> Guillem Jover writes: > You are still conflating the concept with
> >> the deployment. The > underlaying properties of merging /usr is
> >> that the contents for > directories that are present in both /
> >> and /usr get merged into > /usr.
> >>ยท
> >> No, I'm saying that you are proposing yet another different file
> >> system layout. Which is quite simple to see: the file system
> >> would differ.
> >>
> >> You just claim it follows similar "ideas" in some way.
>
> Guillem> Again, no, the important part is that the contents get
> Guillem> *moved* properly and *automatically* within the .deb
> Guillem> packags,
>
> This is the important part to *you*.
This (and the other part you omitted) was an attempt at describing how
this alternative deployment method follows the same underlying concept.
And not about how it is important to me.
> Other things are important to other people.
Sure (even though that was unrelated to my point), and I've acknowledged
that in previous threads. I do understand some people might value using
a deployment method that gives immediate results so they can use the
underlying properties of the merged-/usr right away, and providing a
readily packaged solution for that seemed acceptable (even though it
complicates packaging and alternative deployments). I can also see the
apparent appeal of using directory symlinks, as that avoids the forest
of compat symlinks.
> Instead of working to understand their requirements, you are saying
> things like "you are still conflating the concept with the deployment."
Well, if we are trying to communicate, and there's a clear distinction
between concepts/ideas/designs and how to implement/deploy them, taking
issue with trying to avoid conflating them, seems to me like a path to
muddling the discussion. :/
> I ask you to please stop and to instead take the time to understand the
> people who disagree with you.
I do think I have this understanding. I've kept finding, though, extremely
frustrating, draining and exhausting to deal and discuss this issue,
because people pushing forward with the merged-usr-via-symlinks deployment
method have been doing that, even though:
- we've had sustained technical opposition to it, with complete
disregard to it,
- it's an irreversible process,
- it's being forced into all new installations by default,
when not forcing it on new installations, still makes it possible for
people that value the properties of the merged-usr-via-symlinks
deployment method to still get it via the usrmerge package! :(
At this point, I feel I'm repeating myself, which also exhausts me, so
I don't think I have the energy right now to keep discussing this. :(
Thanks,
Guillem
