On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 21:22:29 +0000, Simon McVittie wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 11:46:35 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > > > The Technical Committee resolves that Debian 'bookworm' should support > > > only the merged-usr root filesystem layout, dropping support for the > > > non-merged-usr layout. > > Should we be more specific than this in what we vote on, to avoid > later having to adjudicate between developers who say that a particular > implementation is or isn't merged-usr?
Sorry, I had missed that we have prior art for this. When we resolved #914897 [1] we wrote: ## What is "merged `/usr`" "Merged `/usr`" describes a possible future standard directories scheme in which the `/{bin,sbin,lib*}/` directories have been made superfluous through replacing them by symlinks to their `/usr` equivalents (`/usr/{bin,sbin,lib*}`). That's exactly what Guillem calls "merged /usr via aliasing", or the "layout 1" from my previous mail. I still think our resolution for #978636 should be clear on what we mean by merged-usr (like the resolution for #914897 was), but this gives me more confidence that we did indeed all intend to be voting on mandating merged /usr via aliasing, vs. not mandating that, vs. further discussion. smcv [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2019/03/msg00001.html