a little productivity on the side (was Re: merged /usr considered harmful)

Andreas Metzler dixit: >1. Make merged-/usr-via-aliased-dirs the only supported layout and make >this information available to apt. (Like we did for multi-arch-support.) >2. After that individual packages can safely move files from / to /usr, >pre-depending on merged-usr-support. This will still

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 23:15:33 +0200, Svante Signell wrote: >It is really stunning that the Debian project, including the TC >overrides the dpkg developer and maintainer Guillem, and still using >dpkg for package management. Maybe Debian should switch to some other >software, like rpm-based used by

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

Hi, On 2021-07-20 10:07 p.m., Brian Thompson wrote: > On Tue, 2021-07-20 at 21:13 -0400, Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside > wrote: >> Ended up with a 3 month useless discussion regarding if this would >> give >> a bad impression, that we need to use node for doing development. >> Later on I was

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

On Tue, 2021-07-20 at 21:13 -0400, Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside wrote: > Ended up with a 3 month useless discussion regarding if this would > give > a bad impression, that we need to use node for doing development. > Later on I was working on a plugin that treated huge amount of data. > So > I

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

Hi, > Hi Holger, I would have expected a reply like this from you. I do still > use Debian, some of my boxes are still Debian-based. Soon they will > probably be converted to Devuan though. I do still contribute to > Debian, mainly to Debian GNU/Hurd and Debian GNU/kFreeBSD. As long as > these

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

Hi, On 2021-07-20 5:51 p.m., Holger Levsen wrote: > On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 11:15:33PM +0200, Svante Signell wrote: > [...] >> Debian, the Universal Operating System was used some years ago! > > Svante, fine. You are unhappy with Debian since years, you're not using it > anymore, you are not

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

Hi, > It is really stunning that the Debian project, including the TC > overrides the dpkg developer and maintainer Guillem, and still using > dpkg for package management. Maybe Debian should switch to some other > software, like rpm-based used by Fedora or even guix used by GNU?? Or > perhaps

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 12:09:52AM +0200, Svante Signell wrote: > Hi Holger, I would have expected a reply like this from you. I do still > use Debian, some of my boxes are still Debian-based. Soon they will > probably be converted to Devuan though. I do still contribute to > Debian, mainly to

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

On Tue, 2021-07-20 at 21:51 +, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 11:15:33PM +0200, Svante Signell wrote: > [...] > > Debian, the Universal Operating System was used some years ago! > > Svante, fine. You are unhappy with Debian since years, you're not > using it anymore, you are

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 11:15:33PM +0200, Svante Signell wrote: [...] > Debian, the Universal Operating System was used some years ago! Svante, fine. You are unhappy with Debian since years, you're not using it anymore, you are not contributing, this is debian-devel@ not debian-rant@, so please

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

On Tue, 2021-07-20 at 15:34 -0400, Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside wrote: > Hi, > > On 2021-07-20 3:30 p.m., Marc Haber wrote: > > On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 14:47:04 +0200, Svante Signell > > wrote: > > > According to the dpkg developer and maintainer Guillem users can > > > still rescue their systems

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

Hi, On 2021-07-20 3:30 p.m., Marc Haber wrote: > On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 14:47:04 +0200, Svante Signell > wrote: >> According to the dpkg developer and maintainer Guillem users can still >> rescue their systems from merged-/usr-via-aliased-dirs with the aid of >> dpkg-fsys-usrunmess(8), see >>

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 14:47:04 +0200, Svante Signell wrote: >According to the dpkg developer and maintainer Guillem users can still >rescue their systems from merged-/usr-via-aliased-dirs with the aid of >dpkg-fsys-usrunmess(8), see

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

On Tue, 2021-07-20 at 13:41 +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote: > > Hello, > Isn't this kind of crying over spilt milk? I also wish we never had > ended up with the buster/bullseye state where both unmerged and > merged-/usr-via-aliased-dirs are fully supported. However there is > now a huge number of

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

On 2021-07-20 Guillem Jover wrote: > On Mon, 2021-07-19 at 16:41:42 +0200, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues wrote: >> So what what is actually the roadmap after the bullseye release? >> What is the way forward? Should I rather file bugs with patches >> against individual packages to move their

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

On Tue, 2021-07-20 at 11:31:37 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > Unfortunately, when the supporters of the merged-/usr-via-aliased-dirs > pushed their approach into the distribution, that meant that package > stopped being able to ship compatibility symlinks under «/», and those > needed to be

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

On Mon, 2021-07-19 at 16:41:42 +0200, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues wrote: > So what what is actually the roadmap after the bullseye release? What is the > way forward? Should I rather file bugs with patches against individual > packages > to move their files from /(sbin|bin|lib)/ to

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

On Mon, 2021-07-19 at 15:10:42 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: > Am 19.07.21 um 03:36 schrieb Guillem Jover: > > What I've also said multiple times, is that > > merged-usr-via-moves-and-symlink-farms could have been implemented in > > a fully automated way, by debhelper, w/o requiring any maintainer

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues: > Quoting Michael Biebl (2021-07-19 15:10:42) >> [...] >> >> According to >> apt-file search -x '^/(lib|bin|sbin)' >> on my Debian sid/amd64 system, we have 1747 packages shipping 24583 >> files in those directories. > > more precisely, on amd64 unstable: > >

Re: merged /usr

On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 at 16:41:42 +0200, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues wrote: > Should I rather file bugs with patches against individual packages > to move their files from /(sbin|bin|lib)/ to /usr/(sbin|bin|lib)/ As discussed in previous iterations of the ongoing merged-/usr megathread, I

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 15:19:32 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: >Am 19.07.21 um 07:23 schrieb Marc Haber: >> I am NOT looking forward having to manually convert legacy systems to >> merged /usr and I do sincerely hope that Debian will choose a way to >> get away without throwing away systems that have

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

Quoting Michael Biebl (2021-07-19 15:10:42) > Am 19.07.21 um 03:36 schrieb Guillem Jover: > > What I've also said multiple times, is that > > merged-usr-via-moves-and-symlink-farms could have been implemented in > > a fully automated way, by debhelper, w/o requiring any maintainer scripts, > > all

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

Am 19.07.21 um 07:23 schrieb Marc Haber: I am NOT looking forward having to manually convert legacy systems to merged /usr and I do sincerely hope that Debian will choose a way to get away without throwing away systems that have just a small /, still supporting a dedicated /usr as long as it's

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

Hi Guillem Am 19.07.21 um 03:36 schrieb Guillem Jover: What I've also said multiple times, is that merged-usr-via-moves-and-symlink-farms could have been implemented in a fully automated way, by debhelper, w/o requiring any maintainer scripts, all with full cooperation and managed by dpkg, with

Re: merged /usr

On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 at 11:33:49 +0200, Stephan Lachnit wrote: > We could start with collecting the packages that install to /bin* > instead of /usr/bin, and adjust the packaging so that they don't do > that. [...] At this point, it shouldn't > matter if you run a merged usr system or not, or am I

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 3:37 AM Guillem Jover wrote: > What I've also said multiple times, is that > merged-usr-via-moves-and-symlink-farms could have been implemented in > a fully automated way, by debhelper, w/o requiring any maintainer scripts, > all with full cooperation and managed by dpkg,

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

On Jul 19, Marc Haber wrote: > I am NOT looking forward having to manually convert legacy systems to > merged /usr and I do sincerely hope that Debian will choose a way to > get away without throwing away systems that have just a small /, still > supporting a dedicated /usr as long as it's

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

As I said, on a separate mail... Marc Haber dijo [Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 07:12:24AM +0200]: > In an ideal world, would the package manager not be a service utility > to SUPPORT policy and adapt to changing environment contitions instead > being a showstopper for innovation? > > Who is the dpkg

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

Sorry to single you out here, Marc -- This goes to many people. This goes, in fact, to the discussion itself. Marc Haber dijo [Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 07:12:24AM +0200]: > In an ideal world, would the package manager not be a service utility > to SUPPORT policy and adapt to changing environment

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

Nowadays you can also have BTRFS subvolumes, which does not require you to define sizes in advance. In that case it is nice for snapshotting to have separate subvolumes for things like home directories. Regards

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

On Sun, 18 Jul 2021 16:21:24 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >I agree with the other feedback that you are overpartitioning your disk. It is especially evident in the df output where there are two-digit amounts of gigabytes free on most of those HUGE partitions. >I used to do this back when I was

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 03:36:59 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: >If by "very minor bugs" you mean that f.ex.: > > * dpkg, dpkg-divert, or update-alternatives are unable to detect file > conflicts and thus might allow silent overwrites of random stuff on > disk, > * when moving files across packages

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside writes: > I had the belief that some software used /tmp for temporary file that > may grow many GB (example DVD creation). > I have 32 GB It should not, or at least it should let you specify a different path, because using tmpfs for /tmp is very common these

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

On Thu, 2021-07-15 at 10:13:47 +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote: > As it has been said and written many times already, in reality this is > not broken by design at all and in fact it is the only successful > strategy that has been deployed by other distros - it's what is being > called

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

Hi, On 2021-07-18 7:21 p.m., Russ Allbery wrote: > Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside writes: > >> Here's my actual config (with 2TB) and yes I have a separate /home > >> What is tmpfs and why is it set to 3.2 GB ? > > tmpfs is a RAM-backed temporary file system that is automatically used for >

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

Hi, On Sun, Jul 18, 2021 at 05:54:33PM -0400, Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside wrote: > On 2021-07-18 5:07 p.m., Andy Smith wrote: > > I recommend understanding the issue before putting forth an opinion. > > > Maybe I shall correct what I said as it may be misunderstood. It's unclear to me why

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

Russ Allbery writes: > I see that you have your system configured to store /tmp on your disk. > This is generally not recommended these days. Storing /tmp in tmpfs is > much faster for some applications and automatically achieves the desired > and standard /tmp behavior of clearing it on

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

Svante Signell writes: > Again, everybody is just hiding, I wonder from who, the big wolf?? Who > is hen? Anybody having the courage to reply to this list about this > issue, not only workarounds/diversions? I'm not discussing the issue on the list because I think the current direction in

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside writes: > Here's my actual config (with 2TB) and yes I have a separate /home > What is tmpfs and why is it set to 3.2 GB ? tmpfs is a RAM-backed temporary file system that is automatically used for paths like /run and /dev/shm that are supposed to be cleared on

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

Hi, On 2021-07-18 6:17 p.m., Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Jul 19, Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside wrote: > >> So if I get it right... > Except for /boot/, which may be required for technical reasons, there > is no need to further partition your file system unless you actually > have reasons to do

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

On Sun, 2021-07-18 at 20:58 +0200, Svante Signell wrote: > On Wed, 2021-07-14 at 23:40 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > On Wed, 2021-07-14 at 19:54:56 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > > > Sean Whitton dixit: > > > > * #978636 move to merged-usr-only? > > > > > > > > We were asked to decide whether

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

On Jul 19, Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside wrote: > So if I get it right... Except for /boot/, which may be required for technical reasons, there is no need to further partition your file system unless you actually have reasons to do it. > One partiton for /boot > One partition for /usr > One

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

Hello (Hi) ! On 2021-07-18 5:07 p.m., Andy Smith wrote: > Hello, > > I think all of this is quite clearly explained in: > > https://salsa.debian.org/md/usrmerge/raw/master/debian/README.Debian > > which is linked from: > > https://wiki.debian.org/UsrMerge > > If you think it's not

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

Hi, On 2021-07-18 5:07 p.m., Andy Smith wrote: > Hello, > > On Sun, Jul 18, 2021 at 04:31:11PM -0400, Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside > wrote: >> My personal opinion is that Debian is going into a mostly "we got the >> best idea in the world but forgot that not everyone implement things the >>

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

Hi, On 2021-07-18 5:31 p.m., Svante Signell wrote: > Hi, is it OK to forward your mail to debian-devel. I don't think > mailing to debian-user will have any effect on this issue? > Sure ! Honestly it's my mistake to have sent it to debian-user. I get everything in one mailbox. I need to have

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 01:15:37PM +0200, Magissia wrote: > In this case, this page should be updated to reflect the fact it is not > broken. > > https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg/MergedUsr Logic does not quite work that way. Just because we selected that way of doing things doesn't imply it

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

On Wed, 2021-07-14 at 23:40 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Wed, 2021-07-14 at 19:54:56 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > > Sean Whitton dixit: > > > * #978636 move to merged-usr-only? > > > > > > We were asked to decide whether or not Debian 'bookworm' should > > > continue to support systems

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

On Sun, Jul 18, 2021 at 10:11:22PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > While, AFAIK, it's indeed only Debian Policy stopping you from not > shipping /usr/share/doc/*/copyright, and that and common sense stopping > you from not shipping /usr/share/doc/*/changelog, that's just yet another > case of

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

On Sun, Jul 18, 2021 at 04:50:49PM +, Stephan Verbücheln wrote: > Thank you for the explanation. I think it covers most use cases. > However, it does not cover packages that do not actually install > programs but only perform changes to /etc or install something to /opt, > is that correct?

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

Thank you for the explanation. I think it covers most use cases. However, it does not cover packages that do not actually install programs but only perform changes to /etc or install something to /opt, is that correct? Regards

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

On Jul 18, Stephan Verbücheln wrote: > On Sun, 2021-07-18 at 11:13 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > I link /var/lib/dpkg/ to somewhere in /usr/, and I think that this is > > > What? No matter whether we merge “/bin” or not, “/usr” should stay > read-only. The dpkg database IS read-only as long as

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

On Sun, Jul 18, 2021 at 11:09:49AM +, Stephan Verbücheln wrote: > On Sun, 2021-07-18 at 11:13 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > I link /var/lib/dpkg/ to somewhere in /usr/, and I think that this is > > > > What? No matter whether we merge “/bin” or not, “/usr” should stay > read-only. On Debian

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

On Sun, 2021-07-18 at 11:13 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > I link /var/lib/dpkg/ to somewhere in /usr/, and I think that this is > What? No matter whether we merge “/bin” or not, “/usr” should stay read-only. Regards

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

On Sun, Jul 18, 2021 at 11:13:37AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Jul 18, Simon McVittie wrote: > > If a machine's /usr is not in sync with its /etc and /var, then it is likely > > to work incorrectly: at a minimum, asking dpkg which packages and versions > But in my experience (with shared-/usr

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

On Jul 18, Simon McVittie wrote: > If a machine's /usr is not in sync with its /etc and /var, then it is likely > to work incorrectly: at a minimum, asking dpkg which packages and versions But in my experience (with shared-/usr containers) this works great as long as everything is aligned to

Re: merged /usr considered harmful

Summary: let go, let go On Sat, Jul 17, 2021 at 09:13:57PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > > And no, I’m not going to embrace every unnecessary change thrown my way. None of us does embraces every unnecessary change. We all choose our battles wisely. > No; usrmerge is broken from the PoV of

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

On Sat, 17 Jul 2021 at 20:34:41 +, Johannes Drexl wrote: > /usr is allowed to be not only on a separate partition, but even on a > network device This has been discussed at considerable length before, but I'll try to recap: A separate or network-mounted /usr is possible in Debian, whether

Re: merged /usr considered harmful

Johannes Drexl dixit: >embrace getting rid of /sbin and /bin. FHS 3.0 explicitely states that >/usr is allowed to be not only on a separate partition, but even on a >network device shared by other machines: This hasn’t been true on Debian for a while (partially due to the systemd/usrmerge

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

Am Freitag, dem 16.07.2021 um 10:09 +0200 schrieb Thomas Goirand: > Merging binaries in /usr and getting rid of /bin and /sbin, at the > end, > WILL be an improvement. Debian cannot be the last distro not doing > the > move, I hope you understand that. > > Also, I'm having a hard time

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

In this case, this page should be updated to reflect the fact it is not broken. https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg/MergedUsr Nol' Le jeudi 15 juillet 2021 à 10:13 +0100, Luca Boccassi a écrit : > On Wed, 2021-07-14 at 23:40 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > On Wed, 2021-07-14 at 19:54:56 +,

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

On 7/16/21 10:09 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 7/14/21 9:54 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote: >> Sean Whitton dixit: >> >>> * #978636 move to merged-usr-only? >>> >>> We were asked to decide whether or not Debian 'bookworm' should >>> continue to support systems which are not using the merged-usr >>>

Re: merged /usr considered harmful

Thorsten Glaser writes: >>But in any case, given that merged-usr-via-aliased-dirs is not really >>supported by dpkg anyway, it is broken by design [B], I have no > > Time for another GR? Leaving Debian behind? Threats of leaving are not fine and are just making any discussion pointless. I

Re: merged /usr considered harmful

On 2021-07-16 at 03:18, Marc Haber wrote: > On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 01:44:54 + (UTC), Thorsten Glaser > wrote: > >>Marc Haber dixit: >> >>>think we can afford an additional time sink at the moment. Please, get >> >>While that’s true… > > You conveniently snipped the "I don't" which turns your

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

On 7/14/21 9:54 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Sean Whitton dixit: > >> * #978636 move to merged-usr-only? >> >> We were asked to decide whether or not Debian 'bookworm' should >> continue to support systems which are not using the merged-usr >> filesystem layout. We decided that support should

Re: merged /usr considered harmful

On 7/15/21 5:08 AM, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Guillem Jover dixit: > >> I've been meaning to send a note about this for some time now, but >> as I feel it keeps getting ignored, it always seems a bit pointless. > > Yeah, I saw this popping up multiple times in that bugreport ☹ > >> But in any

Re: merged /usr considered harmful

On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 01:44:54 + (UTC), Thorsten Glaser wrote: >Marc Haber dixit: >>think we can afford an additional time sink at the moment. Please, get > >While that’s true… You conveniently snipped the "I don't" which turns your quote into the opposite that I wanted to say. Greetings Marc

Re: merged /usr considered harmful

Marc Haber dixit: >think we can afford an additional time sink at the moment. Please, get While that’s true… >Can we please delay this discussion until after the release? I don't … we can’t afford to: the TC discussion becomes valid as soon as bullseye is released, which is in two weeks, and

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

Hello, On Thu 15 Jul 2021 at 09:56AM +02, Jonathan Carter wrote: > Hi Sean > > On 2021/07/15 09:04, Sean Whitton wrote: >> Just to confirm, when you say "merged-usr-via-aliased-dirs", you mean >> what I would get if I typed 'debootstrap bullseye /foo', right? >> >> I would like to note that the

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

On 2021/07/15 10:47, Marc Haber wrote: > Can we please delay this discussion until after the release? To be clear, I was requesting further details from the TC, not a re-evaluation or further discussion. -Jonathan

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

On Wed, 2021-07-14 at 23:40 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Wed, 2021-07-14 at 19:54:56 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > > Sean Whitton dixit: > > > * #978636 move to merged-usr-only? > > > > > > We were asked to decide whether or not Debian 'bookworm' should > > > continue to support systems

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 09:56:18 +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote: >On 2021/07/15 09:04, Sean Whitton wrote: >> Just to confirm, when you say "merged-usr-via-aliased-dirs", you mean >> what I would get if I typed 'debootstrap bullseye /foo', right? >> >> I would like to note that the TC decision did not

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

Hi Sean On 2021/07/15 09:04, Sean Whitton wrote: > Just to confirm, when you say "merged-usr-via-aliased-dirs", you mean > what I would get if I typed 'debootstrap bullseye /foo', right? > > I would like to note that the TC decision did not specify any particular > implementation of merged-/usr.

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

Hello Guillem, On Wed 14 Jul 2021 at 11:40PM +02, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Wed, 2021-07-14 at 19:54:56 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: >> Sean Whitton dixit: >> >* #978636 move to merged-usr-only? >> > >> > We were asked to decide whether or not Debian 'bookworm' should >> > continue to support

Re: merged /usr considered harmful

Guillem Jover dixit: >I've been meaning to send a note about this for some time now, but >as I feel it keeps getting ignored, it always seems a bit pointless. Yeah, I saw this popping up multiple times in that bugreport ☹ >But in any case, given that merged-usr-via-aliased-dirs is not really

Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)

On Wed, 2021-07-14 at 19:54:56 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Sean Whitton dixit: > >* #978636 move to merged-usr-only? > > > > We were asked to decide whether or not Debian 'bookworm' should > > continue to support systems which are not using the merged-usr > > filesystem layout. We decided

Re: merged-/usr-via-symlinks damage control (was Re: usrmerge -- plan B?)

On Sun, 2019-02-24 at 03:23:09 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Tue, 2019-02-19 at 05:49:24 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: […] > > - file a bug on base-installer to request an option to install > > non-broken systems due to merged-/usr-via-symlinks. > > Done.

Re: merged-/usr-via-symlinks damage control (was Re: usrmerge -- plan B?)

Julian Andres Klode writes: > Having symlinks in /bin and so on would be unclean: We'd have to maintain > one symlink per binary in /usr. This is a lot of symlinks. Does the quantity of symlinks matter? > We also cannot ever get rid of them - it would break the property. Well, on any given

Re: merged-/usr-via-symlinks damage control (was Re: usrmerge -- plan B?)

On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 05:49:24AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > Hi! > > On Tue, 2018-11-20 at 22:16:17 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > > Thus, it seems to me that the plan A for usrmerge has serious downsides for > > dubious benefits. What about the plan B I described above? > > So, people still

Re: merged-/usr-via-symlinks vs a-different-layout

First, I hear your frustration. I suspect that our current path is going to lead to a fair bit of pain, sufficient even that I expect us to make some changes after the release of buster. Swallowing that will be hard, but I tend to think we're being somewhat narrow in which requirements are

Re: merged-/usr-via-symlinks vs a-different-layout

On Sun, 2019-02-24 at 09:23:14 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: > > "Guillem" == Guillem Jover writes: > Guillem> On Sun, 2019-02-24 at 08:27:20 +0100, Ansgar wrote: > >> Guillem Jover writes: > You are still conflating the concept with > >> the deployment. The > underlaying properties

Re: merged-/usr-via-symlinks vs a-different-layout

> "Guillem" == Guillem Jover writes: Guillem> On Sun, 2019-02-24 at 08:27:20 +0100, Ansgar wrote: >> Guillem Jover writes: > You are still conflating the concept with >> the deployment. The > underlaying properties of merging /usr is >> that the contents for > directories

Re: merged-/usr-via-symlinks vs a-different-layout

On Sun, 2019-02-24 at 08:27:20 +0100, Ansgar wrote: > Guillem Jover writes: > > You are still conflating the concept with the deployment. The > > underlaying properties of merging /usr is that the contents for > > directories that are present in both / and /usr get merged into > > /usr. > > No,

Re: merged-/usr-via-symlinks damage control (was Re: usrmerge -- plan B?)

On Sun, 2019-02-24 at 03:23:09 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Tue, 2019-02-19 at 05:49:24 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > > So, as part of damage control I'm going to: > > > > - include the Build-Tainted-By patches into dpkg 1.19.5. > > Done. > > > - include a bug-script in dpkg for

Re: merged-/usr-via-symlinks vs a-different-layout

Guillem Jover writes: > On Tue, 2019-02-19 at 08:54:12 +0100, Ansgar wrote: >> Guillem Jover writes: >> > 3) Switching packages to the merged-/usr layout could have been >> >accomplished automatically via debhelper for a coverage of around >> >99% (?) of the archive. With something along

Re: merged-/usr-via-symlinks damage control (was Re: usrmerge -- plan B?)

Hi! On Tue, 2019-02-19 at 05:49:24 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > So, as part of damage control I'm going to: > > - include the Build-Tainted-By patches into dpkg 1.19.5. Done. > - include a bug-script in dpkg for reportbug to report whether the > system has been broken by the

Re: merged-/usr-via-symlinks vs a-different-layout

On Tue, 2019-02-19 at 08:54:12 +0100, Ansgar wrote: > Guillem Jover writes: > > 3) Switching packages to the merged-/usr layout could have been > >accomplished automatically via debhelper for a coverage of around > >99% (?) of the archive. With something along the lines of: > > > >

Re: merged-/usr-via-symlinks vs a-different-layout

Guillem Jover writes: > 3) Switching packages to the merged-/usr layout could have been >accomplished automatically via debhelper for a coverage of around >99% (?) of the archive. With something along the lines of: > > ,--- > D=debian/tmp > for d in /bin /sbin /lib; do >

<    1   2   3