On Mon, 15 May 2023 at 14:36, Steve McIntyre <st...@einval.com> wrote: > > Hey Johannes, > > On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 06:48:04AM +0200, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues > wrote: > >So did we not years ago decide, that the result of the "cross- and > >inter-project discussion" is, that everybody is going merged-/usr and that's > >why we need it too and that's why it is okay to build a system where binaries > >and scripts built for it just may not run on those other systems that do not > >do > >it? With merged-/usr we already *did* "change fundamental things around" for > >reasons that are really not clear to me (but which i do not want to discuss > >here) and as a result did not "care about interoperability" (with those who > >do > >not also adopt it). In my own Debian work I so far only got extra work > >because > >of merged-/usr and I do not see the benefits (yet) and I was hoping that > >"changing fundamental things around Linux and (basically) not caring about > >interoperability" was *not* Debian's attitude but alas here we are. > > > >So have we not already burned the bridges to the non-merged-/usr world? Why > >was > >it okay back then to say "we can make this change because all other important > >players are doing merged-/usr so we can/have to as well". And now in the > >PT_INTERP discussion somehow we care again about those systems? I thought we > >already had the "cross- and inter-project discussion" about merged-/usr and > >because the result was "yes, go for it" we did it too. But if that is the > >case, > >why do we now care for a subset of the interoperability problems caused by > >merged-/usr for systems that don't have it? > > This change is absolutely *not* needed to make merged-/usr work; if > anybody is claiming that it is, then they are not being 100% honest > with us. All the other distros doing merged-/usr have done it without > making this change, and it's also been working OK for us so far > without this change.
That is absolutely true, it is not mandatory. It is one possible solution (of many) to a particular use case being sounded out, that's all. I don't think it was mentioned by anybody as needed, if it was, happy to clarify. Kind regards, Luca Boccassi
