On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 at 20:39, Simon McVittie <s...@debian.org> wrote: > > On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 at 19:32:15 +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote: > > I think > > that we will have to touch debootstrap in any case. If you specify > > --variant=buildd, you get an unmerged chroot even when you do it on > > trixie or unstable. > ... > > our buildds, which are still unmerged and get > > debootstrapped as unmerged once a week > > This certainly seems obviously wrong, because unmerged /usr was > special-cased to be "almost supported" for bookworm-based environments > (unsupported as an end state for user systems that will get upgraded > to trixie, but still required to work well enough for autobuilders, > for QA tools and during the upgrade from bullseye), but in trixie that > no longer applies and a package that only works on merged-/usr systems > would no longer be considered to have a bug. > > (At least, that's my reading of what the technical committee has said, > and certainly it's what I intended us to be saying when drafting #994388!) > > I think we probably want buildd chroots to stay unmerged-/usr for: > > - bullseye and older (including -security, -proposed-updates etc.) > - bullseye-backports > - bookworm (including -security, -proposed-updates etc.?) > > but transition to merged-/usr for: > > - bookworm-backports > - trixie and newer > - unstable > - experimental > > smcv > (speaking here as an individual DD and not on behalf of the TC)
The agreement last year was that we would wait for the tech committee indication before changing the buildds. If there is such a decision, I can start working on that. Kind regards, Luca Boccassi
