On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On 02/13/2018 04:29 PM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > I believe that we have had quite some testing already last time and I
> > would be surprised if we got many more RC bugs on dpkg that had to be fixed
> > on a short timeframe. I guess nobody can give you
On 02/13/2018 04:29 PM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> I believe that we have had quite some testing already last time and I
> would be surprised if we got many more RC bugs on dpkg that had to be fixed
> on a short timeframe. I guess nobody can give you any assurance but
> I'm sure that you can downgrad
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> Guillem Jover writes:
> > In any case, I looked the other day into implementing the
> > --map-pathname option for dpkg-query, and I've got most of the code
> > ready. The problem is that this requires adding support for config
> > files and config frag
Guillem Jover writes:
> In any case, I looked the other day into implementing the
> --map-pathname option for dpkg-query, and I've got most of the code
> ready. The problem is that this requires adding support for config
> files and config fragments to dpkg-query, which has the additional
> problem
Ian Jackson writes:
> Also, I fear that unless we provide a straightforward way to retain
> separate /usr, including an appropriate d-i command line option, we
> will get further pushback and anger from traditionalists. We risk
> reopening old wounds (see some of the less temperate responses earli
On Mon, 2018-02-05 at 22:32:05 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 08:19:33PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 09:16:40 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > > On Dec 23, md wrote:
> > > > On Dec 20, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > > > > > This change was reverted in 1
On 02/11/2018 02:40 PM, Philip Hands wrote:
> That being the case, I think we should let the people volunteering to do
> the work to get on with it without delay. That way there will be plenty
> of time to address any real downsides that might be revealed.
Something I did notice yesterday by accid
Hi Ian,
You're not citing any concrete examples of things that will supposedly
break.
AFAICS the closest you got was:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Another bad consequence is that some existing configurations that do
> not, for whatever reason, mount /usr early, will be harder to se
I had a conversation with Marco about this at FOSDEM. I'm sorry to
say that I still don't understand why we would make this change.
The links provided do not explain what the benefits are. And there
are downsides.
One obvious downside is reduced testing of existing systems which have
filesystem
On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 08:19:33PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 09:16:40 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > On Dec 23, md wrote:
> > > On Dec 20, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > > > > This change was reverted in 1.0.87 as dpkg-shlibdeps didn't cope
> > > > > properly with a merged-
On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 09:16:40 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Dec 23, md wrote:
>
> > On Dec 20, Julien Cristau wrote:
> >
> > > > This change was reverted in 1.0.87 as dpkg-shlibdeps didn't cope
> > > > properly with a merged-usr system. Thus reopening this bug report for
> > > > that versi
On Dec 23, md wrote:
> On Dec 20, Julien Cristau wrote:
>
> > > This change was reverted in 1.0.87 as dpkg-shlibdeps didn't cope
> > > properly with a merged-usr system. Thus reopening this bug report for
> > > that version.
> > >
> > > The dpkg-shlibdeps bugs has been fixed [1] in the mean tim
On Dec 20, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > This change was reverted in 1.0.87 as dpkg-shlibdeps didn't cope
> > properly with a merged-usr system. Thus reopening this bug report for
> > that version.
> >
> > The dpkg-shlibdeps bugs has been fixed [1] in the mean time. So it would
> > be great if this
Hi Julien
On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 10:56:19 +0100 Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 20.12.2016 um 09:21 schrieb Julien Cristau:
> > On 12/20/2016 01:35 AM, Michael Biebl wrote:
>
> >> The dpkg-shlibdeps bugs has been fixed [1] in the mean time. So it would
> >> be great if this bug report could be re-conside
Am 20.12.2016 um 10:56 schrieb Michael Biebl:
> Am 20.12.2016 um 09:21 schrieb Julien Cristau:
>> On 12/20/2016 01:35 AM, Michael Biebl wrote:
>
>>> The dpkg-shlibdeps bugs has been fixed [1] in the mean time. So it would
>>> be great if this bug report could be re-considered.
>>>
>> That'll be af
Am 20.12.2016 um 09:21 schrieb Julien Cristau:
> On 12/20/2016 01:35 AM, Michael Biebl wrote:
>> The dpkg-shlibdeps bugs has been fixed [1] in the mean time. So it would
>> be great if this bug report could be re-considered.
>>
> That'll be after stretch now.
I can understand your decision even i
On 12/20/2016 01:35 AM, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Control: found -1 1.0.87
>
> Hi there!
>
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 08:47:21 +0200 Ansgar Burchardt
> wrote:
>> Package: debootstrap
>> Version: 1.0.83
>>
>> As mentioned earlier, I would like to see --merged-usr enabled by
>> default for Debian Stretch.
Control: found -1 1.0.87
Hi there!
On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 08:47:21 +0200 Ansgar Burchardt
wrote:
> Package: debootstrap
> Version: 1.0.83
>
> As mentioned earlier, I would like to see --merged-usr enabled by
> default for Debian Stretch. The last discussion on -devel@[1] was quite
> positive; I h
Package: debootstrap
Version: 1.0.83
As mentioned earlier, I would like to see --merged-usr enabled by
default for Debian Stretch. The last discussion on -devel@[1] was quite
positive; I had some additional positive feedback on IRC.
I'm not aware of any regressions so far, except for having forg
19 matches
Mail list logo
