On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 at 13:16, Raphael Hertzog <hert...@debian.org> wrote: > > Hello, > > On Mon, 03 Apr 2023, Helmut Grohne wrote: > > Please consider it to be a piece of best > > intentions at reconciling feedback wherever I could. At the time of this > > writing it certainly is not consensus, but consensus is what I seek > > here. Without further ado, the full DEP text follows after my name > > while it also is available at > > https://salsa.debian.org/dep-team/deps/-/merge_requests/5 > > I'd like to express some disappointment that nobody replied publicly > sofar. Last year's developer survey concluded that "Debian should complete > the merged-/usr transition" was the most important project for Debian [1] > (among those proposed in the survey). That's what we are trying to do > here and it would be nice to build some sort of consensus on what it means > in terms of changes for dpkg. > > I know that Guillem (dpkg's maintainer) is generally opposed to the > approach that Debian has followed to implement merged-/usr but I have > yet to read his concerns on the changes proposed here
There was an answer from the maintainer, 2 weeks ago: https://lists.debian.org/debian-dpkg/2023/04/msg00001.html Essentially, the answer was "no", so... After Bookworm ships I plan to propose a policy change to the CTTE and policy maintainers to forbid shipping files in the legacy directories altogether, followed by a debhelper change to adjust any stragglers automatically at build time and a mass rebuild, plus MBF for the small % that does not use dh and a piuparts test to stop migration for anything that is uploaded and doesn't comply. That should bring the matter to an end, without needing to modify dpkg. Kind regards, Luca Boccassi
