在 2020-02-18二的 23:58 -0500,The Wanderer写道: > On 2020-02-18 at 20:50, Guillem Jover wrote: > > > On Sun, 2020-02-16 at 11:59:56 +0000, Simon McVittie wrote: > > > > > I would be grateful if people who advocate transitioning > > > individual packages, and people who consider the approach taken by > > > usrmerge and debootstrap to be sufficient, could refer to their > > > preferred route in a way that makes it clear which one they are > > > advocating. Saying we should do a transition "properly" is > > > tautologous - of course we should! - but when people disagree about > > > what the proper way to do it is, it becomes an ambiguous > > > recommendation that doesn't guide anyone to do the right thing. > > > > I've been consistently calling the concept of merging /* into /usr/* > > as merged-/usr and the specific approach of using directory symlinks > > as merged-/usr-via-symlinks (although I think that's confusing as > > the other approach does use symlink farms), so I think using either > > merged-/usr-via-aliased-dirs or merged-/usr-via-symlink-dirs is more > > clear (will be renaming the buildinfo tainted tag). The approach > > I've been proposing I'd call merged-/usr-via-moves-and-symlink-farms > > or something along those lines. > > As a tangent, because this has never made sense to me: > > Is there a reason this is all looking to merge /* into /usr/* instead of > the other way around?
Sure. Before we repeat all discussions that we previously made again, I invite everyone currently reading this thread to take a look at Debian's Technical Committee's last decision again: * https://bugs.debian.org/914897 * https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2019/03/msg00001.html (Apologize that this TC decision was not reflected on www.debian.org; it is a long overdue for the debian-www team... Merge Requests welcome!) I hope this could provide more background to you and further discussions can be made on top of the TC decision. -- Thanks, Boyuan Yang
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part