Matthew Garrett writes:
> With my non-CTTE hat on, I think this is a demonstration that Debian
> *does* care about derivatives. It's important to ensure that derivatives
> are aware of the subtle interactions between dpkg and usrmerge,
> otherwise they may suffer from hard to diagnose issues on
On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 09:14:53PM +0200, Ansgar wrote:
> On Tue, 2023-06-13 at 20:01 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > After discussing this at our monthly meeting, we concluded that the
> > technical committee isn't going to take action on this at the moment.
> > There's a legitimate technical
On Tue, 2023-06-13 at 20:01 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> After discussing this at our monthly meeting, we concluded that the
> technical committee isn't going to take action on this at the moment.
> There's a legitimate technical consideration behind the warning, and
> it's necessary for
On Tue, 2023-06-06 at 11:04 +0100, Sean Whitton wrote:
> I don't think the TC has or should have any authority over dpkg
> upstream, but with dpkg being a native package, any implementation of
> our decision for the Debian archive is also implemented for dpkg
> upstream. And it might be that the
Hello Emilio,
On Thu 11 May 2023 at 12:30PM +02, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> I think you're conflating two independent things.
>
> If you override the dpkg maintainer to remove that warning that occurs on
> derivatives, then anyone could NMU dpkg and the maintainer wouldn't introduce
> it
Hi,
This thread has rather veered off the initial bug report.
On 11/05/2023 13:16, Simon Richter wrote:
Hi,
On 5/11/23 10:59, Sean Whitton wrote:
Dear ctte, please consider overruling the dpkg maintainer to include
the patch from #994388[1].
Currently dpkg contains code to emit the
On Sun, 21 May 2023 at 15:51, Ansgar wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2023-05-21 at 16:25 +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> > On a process level, I think I miss attempts to resolve this with the
> > dpkg maintainer in a constructive way.
>
> The patch was already suggested to the dpkg maintainer and rejected.
>
>
On Sun, 2023-05-21 at 16:25 +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> On a process level, I think I miss attempts to resolve this with the
> dpkg maintainer in a constructive way.
The patch was already suggested to the dpkg maintainer and rejected.
> Does anyone mind just closing the bug?
Yes, I do.
Hi Ansgar,
I'm speaking with a CTTE hat here, but not representing CTTE consensus.
On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 11:47:42PM +0200, Ansgar wrote:
> Dear ctte, please consider overruling the dpkg maintainer to include
> the patch from #994388[1].
I think we need to reject this request on multiple
Hi,
On Fri, 2023-05-19 at 07:09 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Thu 18 May 2023 at 07:55PM +02, Ansgar wrote:
>
> > Why not?
>
> We will not move that fast.
So there is no real reason?
As there doesn't seem to be anything you think need to be talked about
that is missing to get to a decision
Hello,
On Thu 18 May 2023 at 07:55PM +02, Ansgar wrote:
> Why not?
We will not move that fast.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On 19/05/2023 01:33, Luca Boccassi wrote:
We heard so much in the past couple of weeks about how important it is
for the project not to cause issues for derivatives and
cross-compatibility use cases, even speculatively. This is not even
speculative, it is certain to cause damage (as we
Bastian Blank dijo [Thu, May 18, 2023 at 09:05:44PM +0200]:
> But why does the state of the package (native vs non-native) can have
> any effect on a CTTE decision? Or do you want to say I can block CTTE
> from reaching any kind of decision just by uploading a package as
> native? Sorry, but
Am Do., 18. Mai 2023 um 20:39 Uhr schrieb Luca Boccassi :
> [...]
> We heard so much in the past couple of weeks about how important it is
> for the project not to cause issues for derivatives and
> cross-compatibility use cases, even speculatively. This is not even
> speculative, it is certain to
Hi Gunar
On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 12:14:42PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> dpkg has many bits that make it special. It has been discussed whethe
> dpkg should be a native package or it should become non-native; if it
> were non-native, having a patch that contradicts the upstream author's
> wishes
On Thu, 18 May 2023 at 19:27, Ansgar wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 12:14 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > Ansgar dijo [Thu, May 18, 2023 at 07:55:03PM +0200]:
> > > Why not?
> > >
> > > Do you think the implications of removing the warning are unclear?
> > >
> > > Do you think we need to explore
On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 12:14 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Ansgar dijo [Thu, May 18, 2023 at 07:55:03PM +0200]:
> > Why not?
> >
> > Do you think the implications of removing the warning are unclear?
> >
> > Do you think we need to explore alternative solutions?
>
> (I am no longer part of the
Ansgar dijo [Thu, May 18, 2023 at 07:55:03PM +0200]:
> Why not?
>
> Do you think the implications of removing the warning are unclear?
>
> Do you think we need to explore alternative solutions?
(I am no longer part of the Committee, answering just as another
developer)
dpkg has many bits that
Hi,
On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 10:48 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Thu 18 May 2023 at 07:21PM +02, Ansgar wrote:
>
> > The full freeze is approaching and there has been no progress on
> > this
> > issue. Does the ctte think a decision before the release is still
> > possible?
>
> Not speaking for
Hello,
On Thu 18 May 2023 at 07:21PM +02, Ansgar wrote:
> The full freeze is approaching and there has been no progress on this
> issue. Does the ctte think a decision before the release is still
> possible?
Not speaking for the whole ctte, but I don't think that is possible.
--
Sean Whitton
Hi,
On Thu, 2023-05-11 at 00:32 +0200, Ansgar wrote:
> On Wed, 2023-05-10 at 23:47 +0200, Ansgar wrote:
> > Cool, then let's ask tech-ctte.
> >
> > Dear ctte, please consider overruling the dpkg maintainer to
> > include
> > the patch from #994388[1].
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ansgar
> >
> > [1]:
On 15/05/2023 19:00, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Sun, 14 May 2023 at 23:37:34 +0200, Josh Triplett wrote:
>> People build things on Debian that are not Debian packages. People
>> compile binaries on Debian, and expect them to work on any system that
>> has sufficiently new libraries.
>
> *raises
On Tue, 16 May 2023 at 09:27, Simon McVittie wrote:
>
> On Tue, 16 May 2023 at 02:50:48 +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > This sounds like a very interesting use case, and the first real one
> > mentioned, which is great to see - but I do not fully follow yet, from
> > what you are saying it seems
On Tue, 16 May 2023 at 02:50:48 +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> This sounds like a very interesting use case, and the first real one
> mentioned, which is great to see - but I do not fully follow yet, from
> what you are saying it seems to me that what you need is for your
> binaries to use the
On Mon, 15 May 2023 at 18:54, Simon McVittie wrote:
>
> On Sun, 14 May 2023 at 23:37:34 +0200, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > People build things on Debian that are not Debian packages. People
> > compile binaries on Debian, and expect them to work on any system that
> > has sufficiently new libraries.
On Mon, 15 May 2023 at 16:18, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> Luca Boccassi writes:
> > On Mon, 15 May 2023 at 02:26, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> >> (Also, no slight on the GUIX folks, but GUIX is not exactly an, uh,
> >> major player in Linux distributions, and I'm not sure how much they
> >> care about
On Mon, 15 May 2023 at 06:48:04 +0200, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues wrote:
> Obviously, with Luca's proposal, binaries from packages built with a different
> dynamic linker path in them would not work on distributions without
> merged-/usr
> symlinks. But if the property of stuff from Debian
On Sun, 14 May 2023 at 23:37:34 +0200, Josh Triplett wrote:
> People build things on Debian that are not Debian packages. People
> compile binaries on Debian, and expect them to work on any system that
> has sufficiently new libraries.
*raises hand*
Hello, I represent an example of those people.
> "Matthew" == Matthew Vernon writes:
Matthew> On 15/05/2023 16:54, Bdale Garbee wrote:
>> I could.
>>
>> Can you provide an example of actual value delivered to Debian
>> from merged-/usr?
Matthew> With respect, I don't think this line of argument is going
You are of course correct.
I remain unconvinced that anything related to the work on merged-/usr to date
should be considered as a positive justification for actions discussed in this
thread, but we can just let the rest drop.
Bdale
On May 15, 2023 10:08:00 AM MDT, Matthew Vernon wrote:
On 15/05/2023 16:54, Bdale Garbee wrote:
I could.
Can you provide an example of actual value delivered to Debian from
merged-/usr?
With respect, I don't think this line of argument is going to get us
very far - this bug isn't about whether we should undo usr-merge, so I
don't think a
I could.
Can you provide an example of actual value delivered to Debian from merged-/usr?
Bdale
On May 15, 2023 7:15:53 AM MDT, Luca Boccassi wrote:
>On Mon, 15 May 2023 at 13:51, Bdale Garbee wrote:
>>
>> Merged-/usr seems to me to have brought great pain with no discernable
>> benefit
Luca Boccassi writes:
> On Mon, 15 May 2023 at 02:26, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> (Also, no slight on the GUIX folks, but GUIX is not exactly an, uh,
>> major player in Linux distributions, and I'm not sure how much they
>> care about compatibility with anyone else.)
> This is a counter-example to
On Mon, 15 May 2023 at 14:36, Steve McIntyre 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
Hey Johannes,
On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 06:48:04AM +0200, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues
wrote:
>Quoting Steve McIntyre (2023-05-15 02:54:02)
>>
>> Pointing at gentoo or nixos as examples of projects that have decided
>> to break compatibility doesn't cut it, I'm afraid. They're well known
>>
On Mon, 15 May 2023 at 13:51, Bdale Garbee wrote:
>
> Merged-/usr seems to me to have brought great pain with no discernable
> benefit to Debian so far, and I at least have completely lost the thread on
> what the point of doing it was supposed to be. So, using it as a
> justification for
Merged-/usr seems to me to have brought great pain with no discernable benefit
to Debian so far, and I at least have completely lost the thread on what the
point of doing it was supposed to be. So, using it as a justification for
further harm to user and system expectations isn't compelling.
Hi,
Quoting Steve McIntyre (2023-05-15 02:54:02)
> On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 12:24:15AM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> >On Sun, 14 May 2023 at 22:37, Josh Triplett wrote:
> >
> >> The x86-64 ABI is set. Feel free to make the case to the next
> >> architecture designer that their new ABI should have
On Mon, 15 May 2023 at 02:26, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> Luca Boccassi writes:
>
> > That's self-evidently not true, as there are other distributions where
> > that already happens, it's been already mentioned.
>
> You've mentioned this a couple of times but I don't think I've seen the
> message
Luca Boccassi writes:
> That's self-evidently not true, as there are other distributions where
> that already happens, it's been already mentioned.
You've mentioned this a couple of times but I don't think I've seen the
message where the details were explained. Maybe this was only in your
I'm *trying* to assume good faith here, but I'm running out of energy
to do so.
On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 01:42:27AM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
>On Mon, 15 May 2023 at 01:14, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
>> Incidentally, that remains true even if we only do that in distribution
>> packages. I certainly
On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 12:24:15AM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
>On Sun, 14 May 2023 at 22:37, Josh Triplett wrote:
>
>> The x86-64 ABI is set. Feel free to make the case to the next
>> architecture designer that their new ABI should have the dynamic linker
>> in `/usr/lib`. That would *not* have
On Mon, 15 May 2023 at 01:14, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> Luca Boccassi writes:
>
> > Why would "software compiled on Debian" fail to work in other
> > environments? Well, there are many reasons actually, people invented
> > containers/flatpaks/snaps exactly for that reason. But nothing do with
> >
On Mon, 15 May 2023 at 01:07, Peter Pentchev wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 12:24:15AM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 May 2023 at 22:37, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 01:11:38PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > > > The loader is still available via the
Luca Boccassi writes:
> Why would "software compiled on Debian" fail to work in other
> environments? Well, there are many reasons actually, people invented
> containers/flatpaks/snaps exactly for that reason. But nothing do with
> anything discussed here though, as far as I can tell?
My
On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 12:24:15AM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> On Sun, 14 May 2023 at 22:37, Josh Triplett wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 01:11:38PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > > The loader is still available via the old path, so external/third
> > > party/local/other software works
On Sun, 14 May 2023 at 22:37, Josh Triplett wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 01:11:38PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > The loader is still available via the old path, so external/third
> > party/local/other software works unchanged. This should negatively
> > only affect our 1st party
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 01:11:38PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> The loader is still available via the old path, so external/third
> party/local/other software works unchanged. This should negatively
> only affect our 1st party packages, when running on a non-merged
> distro.
> And are _all_ our
On Fri, 12 May 2023 at 15:30, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 01:11:38PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> >On Fri, 12 May 2023 at 12:08, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 11:40:05AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >> >On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 10:49:32AM +0100,
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 01:11:38PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
>On Fri, 12 May 2023 at 12:08, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 11:40:05AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> >On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 10:49:32AM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
>> >>On Fri, 12 May 2023 at 09:40, Steve
On Fri, 12 May 2023 at 13:21, Simon Richter wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 5/12/23 02:51, Luca Boccassi wrote:
>
> > Or alternatively, we can establish that a documentation/post-facto
> > approach is enough for derivatives, and then that's valid for all
> > changes and transitions.
>
> For the context of
Hi,
On 5/12/23 02:51, Luca Boccassi wrote:
Or alternatively, we can establish that a documentation/post-facto
approach is enough for derivatives, and then that's valid for all
changes and transitions.
For the context of this bug, the notice *is* the after-the-fact
documentation of an
On Fri, 12 May 2023 at 12:08, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 11:40:05AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 10:49:32AM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> >>On Fri, 12 May 2023 at 09:40, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 07:40:00AM +0200,
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 11:40:05AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 10:49:32AM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
>>On Fri, 12 May 2023 at 09:40, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 07:40:00AM +0200, Ansgar wrote:
>>> >
>>> >The core issue as I see it is as
On Fri, 12 May 2023 at 11:40, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 10:49:32AM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> >On Fri, 12 May 2023 at 09:40, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 07:40:00AM +0200, Ansgar wrote:
> >> >
> >> >The core issue as I see it is as follows:
>
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 10:49:32AM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
>On Fri, 12 May 2023 at 09:40, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 07:40:00AM +0200, Ansgar wrote:
>> >
>> >The core issue as I see it is as follows:
>> >
>> >- Debian has decided to support only merged-/usr, including
On Fri, 12 May 2023 at 09:40, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 07:40:00AM +0200, Ansgar wrote:
> >
> >The core issue as I see it is as follows:
> >
> >- Debian has decided to support only merged-/usr, including possibly
> > moving /bin/sh to /usr/bin/sh or using
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 07:40:00AM +0200, Ansgar wrote:
>
>The core issue as I see it is as follows:
>
>- Debian has decided to support only merged-/usr, including possibly
> moving /bin/sh to /usr/bin/sh or using /usr/lib*/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2
> as the interpreter in binaries.
WTF? *Nobody*
On Wed, 2023-05-10 at 19:01 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Wed 10 May 2023 at 11:47PM +02, Ansgar wrote:
> > Cool, then let's ask tech-ctte.
> >
> > Dear ctte, please consider overruling the dpkg maintainer to
> > include
> > the patch from #994388[1].
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ansgar
> >
> > [1]:
On Thu, 11 May 2023 21:16:34 +0900 Simon Richter
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 5/11/23 10:59, Sean Whitton wrote:
>
> >> Dear ctte, please consider overruling the dpkg maintainer to
include
> >> the patch from #994388[1].
>
> > Currently dpkg contains code to emit the merged-/usr warning,
that's
> >
Hi,
On 5/11/23 10:59, Sean Whitton wrote:
Dear ctte, please consider overruling the dpkg maintainer to include
the patch from #994388[1].
Currently dpkg contains code to emit the merged-/usr warning, that's
dead code on Debian, but which becomes active when packages from the
Debian archive
Hi Sean,
On 11/05/2023 03:59, Sean Whitton wrote:
Hello,
On Wed 10 May 2023 at 11:47PM +02, Ansgar wrote:
Dear ctte, please consider overruling the dpkg maintainer to include
the patch from #994388[1].
Currently dpkg contains code to emit the merged-/usr warning, that's
dead code on
Hello,
On Wed 10 May 2023 at 11:47PM +02, Ansgar wrote:
> Dear ctte, please consider overruling the dpkg maintainer to include
> the patch from #994388[1].
Currently dpkg contains code to emit the merged-/usr warning, that's
dead code on Debian, but which becomes active when packages from the
Hello,
On Wed 10 May 2023 at 11:47PM +02, Ansgar wrote:
> Cool, then let's ask tech-ctte.
>
> Dear ctte, please consider overruling the dpkg maintainer to include
> the patch from #994388[1].
>
> Thanks,
> Ansgar
>
> [1]: https://bugs.debian.org/994388#397
This would require a new,
On Wed, 2023-05-10 at 23:47 +0200, Ansgar wrote:
> Cool, then let's ask tech-ctte.
>
> Dear ctte, please consider overruling the dpkg maintainer to include
> the patch from #994388[1].
>
> Thanks,
> Ansgar
>
> [1]: https://bugs.debian.org/994388#397
For derivatives based on Debian stable it
Package: tech-ctte
X-Debbugs-Cc: Russ Allbery , Sean Whitton
, Helmut Grohne , Luca Boccassi
, debian-d...@lists.debian.org, debian-de...@lists.debian.org
On Wed, 2023-05-10 at 14:36 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ansgar writes:
> > Debian going out of its way to tell derivative users to switch
66 matches
Mail list logo
