Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Marco d'Itri Linux.IT> writes: > grml-rescueboot is way more useful for rescue purposes. It is… except, I didn’t take it into account when creating the 256 MiB /boot for a laptop, and the regular kernel and initrd are huge already these days, and then you have two of them, plus a temporary

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Ansgar Burchardt debian.org> writes: > Marc Haber writes: > > I, for example, am afraid of having to merge /usr in existing systems > > during upgrades, causing repartitions to be necessary. I am afraid of > > partition layout suddenly not fitting any more during

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 15:19:43 +0100, Tom H wrote: >Johann (I can't think of the other "fanboi" to whom you're referring) >has argued in the past for the removal of rc.local and sysvinit >compatibility. People like him should be silenced on development mailing lists. They don't

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

[explanations snipped] Thanks for trying to clarify. I'll stop ranting about that and revisit things when we're in the freeze. Greetings Marc -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 09:07:56 +0100 Marc Haber wrote: > On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 00:20:33 +0100, Michael Biebl > wrote: > >Amen. I'm much happier how the last couple of releases were handled. > >The release team(s) did an outstanding job. > >And things

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

]] Marc Haber > We have never done this, and we shold not do that for stretch. >From https://release.debian.org/jessie/freeze_policy.html: After the 5th of February 2015, we will not allow packages to re-enter testing if they are removed. >From

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 08:39:02 +, Neil Williams wrote: >On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 09:07:56 +0100 >Marc Haber wrote: > >> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 00:20:33 +0100, Michael Biebl >> wrote: >> >Amen. I'm much happier how the last couple of

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 20:24:34 +0100, Vincent Bernat wrote: > ? 16 janvier 2016 17:37 +0100, Marc Haber  : > >>>You seem to always take vague examples to avoid being contradicted. You >>>can execute any unit before and after network is setup through

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 12:29:42 +0100, Vincent Bernat wrote: > ? 17 janvier 2016 11:25 +0100, Marc Haber  : >>>Of course, vlan1 is up because with networkd, configuring the "netdev" makes >>>it up while in Debian, setting the IP makes it up. However,

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 00:20:33 +0100, Michael Biebl wrote: >Amen. I'm much happier how the last couple of releases were handled. The >release team(s) did an outstanding job. >And things like autoremovals are a god send. I am not opposed to autoremovals. I am opposed to removing

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 10:21:15 +0100 Marc Haber wrote: > On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 08:39:02 +, Neil Williams > wrote: > >On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 09:07:56 +0100 > >Marc Haber wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 00:20:33

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 11:25:50 +0100, Marc Haber wrote: >Judging from man systemd.device, a .device file has something to do >with udev. A vlan device is not created by udev, it comes into >existence when a .netdev unit like > >|[1/501]mh@barrida:~$ cat

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

❦ 17 janvier 2016 11:25 +0100, Marc Haber  : >>Of course, vlan1 is up because with networkd, configuring the "netdev" makes >>it up while in Debian, setting the IP makes it up. However, I don't see >>you whining about the lack of flexibility in Debian where you

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Marc Haber wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 09:53:52 +0100, Tom H wrote: >> >> Lennart didn't even say that he wanted to get rid of "EnvironmentFile=". >> >>> From the same-named thread on systemd-devel@: >> >> ---

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 11:12:37 +, Jonathan McDowell wrote: >On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 07:09:59PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: >> On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 17:54:49 +, Jonathan McDowell >> wrote: >> >You're not communicating clearly and this is indeed causing problems

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 04:09:00PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > It would help to be friendly to each other. No CoC needed by that, > it's just basic common sense. The meaning of "friendly" and "common sense" is different for different people. If you

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sat, 09 Jan 2016 11:09:00 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: >For one specific example, it's become quite clear over the past year that >systemd has achieved the same status as abortion debates in US politics. >Not only is it clear that we will *never* stop arguing about systemd,

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 09:31:36 +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote: >On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 01:31:12PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: >> What will kill Debian faster than anything else is to have every idea for >> changing something large, interesting, or possibly revolutionary in Debian >> be met

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 11:14:53 +, Neil Williams wrote: >On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 18:32:28 +0800 >Paul Wise wrote: >> On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 1:41 AM, Marc Haber wrote: >> >> > Yes, I have heard your (it was you, wasn't it) talk in Heidelberg. I >> > took with me

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 17:12:02 +0100, Vincent Bernat wrote: > ? 16 janvier 2016 16:38 +0100, Marc Haber  : >> It's simply unproductive to first having to argue with upstream if one >> needs one certain IPv6 /proc/sys/net option in systemd-networkd

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 15:59:33 +, Ian Jackson wrote: >But I have had, in general, good support from almost all quarters. >Almost no-one has tried to discourage me, and there has been no anger, >derision, or attacks. The main limiting factor has been my own

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

❦ 16 janvier 2016 16:38 +0100, Marc Haber  : > It's simply unproductive to first having to argue with upstream if one > needs one certain IPv6 /proc/sys/net option in systemd-networkd _and_ > to wait for the next Debian stable release for this possibility to >

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 04:07:12PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > There was a time when we released when it was finished. Now it seems > like we aim to release at all cost when the calendar says that we > should. No. We always ignored the last bunch of bugs. At some point you need to make the call

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

❦ 16 janvier 2016 17:37 +0100, Marc Haber  : >>You seem to always take vague examples to avoid being contradicted. You >>can execute any unit before and after network is setup through the >>dependency system. > > Show me how to set a certain option to a VLAN

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Am 16.01.2016 um 23:38 schrieb Philipp Kern: > On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 04:07:12PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: >> There was a time when we released when it was finished. Now it seems >> like we aim to release at all cost when the calendar says that we >> should. > > No. We always ignored the last

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Jan 10 2016, Eric Valette wrote: > Russ Allbery writes: > >> For one specific example, it's become quite clear over the past year that >> systemd has achieved the same status as abortion debates in US politics. >> Not only is it clear that we will *never* stop arguing

Re: Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 10:56:21AM +0100, Eric Valette wrote: > Your example comparing systemd debate vs abortion debate is definitively > insane snip > ...(at least here in France). Russ specifically said "in US politics". His analogy was very clearly bracketed to the situation in the US, *not*

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 12:03 AM, Philipp Kern wrote: > On 2016-01-04 11:30, Marc Haber wrote: >> >> Please also notice that this is the only option for ExecStart in >> systemd units. Well played, Lennart. > > Similarly skeleton-based init scripts use the full path as well. It

Re: Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Russ Allbery writes: For one specific example, it's become quite clear over the past year that systemd has achieved the same status as abortion debates in US politics. Not only is it clear that we will *never* stop arguing about systemd, opposition to or support of systemd has turned into a

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Sorry. Not meant for list. :( On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Tom H wrote: > Off-list. > > On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: >> >> What is the advantage of having a optional-merged-/usr? > > Imagine the opposition if this had been

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Off-list. On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > > What is the advantage of having a optional-merged-/usr? Imagine the opposition if this had been proposed as a non-optional change! (BTW, I'll take this opportunity to thank you for two of your recent

Re: Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 10:56:21AM +0100, Eric Valette wrote: > Russ Allbery writes: > > >For one specific example, it's become quite clear over the past year that > >systemd has achieved the same status as abortion debates in US politics. > >Not only is it clear that we will *never* stop arguing

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On 10/01/16 11:09, Marc Haber wrote: > Yes. But two of his militant fanbois suggested in the following that > the option should be removed Unfortunately, any sufficiently large community seems to have people whose contributions are not entirely (or sometimes not at all) constructive. I'm sure

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Hallo, * Eric Valette [Sun, Jan 10 2016, 02:16:50PM]: > >On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 10:56:21AM +0100, Eric Valette wrote: > >>Russ Allbery writes: > >> > >>>For one specific example, it's become quite clear over the past year that > >>>systemd has achieved the same status as abortion debates in US

Re: Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

I agree, one is about a person's right to not be forced to have something that they aren't able to support and will cause their life difficulty, the other is about abortion > Your example comparing systemd debate vs abortion debate is definitively insane : abortion is a philosophical debate that

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 09:53:52 +0100, Tom H wrote: >On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 12:03 AM, Philipp Kern wrote: >Lennart didn't even say that he wanted to get rid of "EnvironmentFile=". > >>From the same-named thread on systemd-devel@: > >--- 8< --- >1) >I probably

Re: Re: Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 10:56:21AM +0100, Eric Valette wrote: Russ Allbery writes: >For one specific example, it's become quite clear over the past year that >systemd has achieved the same status as abortion debates in US politics. >Not only is it clear that we will *never* stop arguing about

Re: md5(3bsd) (was: Re: support for merged /usr in Debian)

Le 8 janvier 2016 23:54:41 GMT+01:00, m...@linux.it a écrit : >On Jan 08, Robert Edmonds wrote: > >> If it really does need to do MD5, maybe it could use the one in >libbsd0 >> instead of dragging in libgnutls-openssl27 and its dependencies. >I did not notice this recent

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 18:32:28 +0800 Paul Wise wrote: Rather a critical element has been snipped there, Paul, sadly. On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 15:42:07 +, Niels Thykier wrote: > Given the latter half of our >freeze tends to involve mostly frustration,

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 07:09:59PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 17:54:49 +, Jonathan McDowell > wrote: > >You're not communicating clearly and this is indeed causing problems > >in this thread. You said "all my clients run unstable", not "all my > >client

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 1:41 AM, Marc Haber wrote: > Yes, I have heard your (it was you, wasn't it) talk in Heidelberg. I > took with me that you plan to adopt a "once you're out of testing, > you're out of stable for the next release, unless you're really really > important" policy for stretch,

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 7:14 PM, Neil Williams wrote: > Rather a critical element has been snipped there, Paul, sadly. Thanks for pointing out my error, sorry for the noise. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Russ Allbery writes ("Re: support for merged /usr in Debian"): > What will kill Debian faster than anything else is to have every idea for > changing something large, interesting, or possibly revolutionary in Debian > be met with anger, derision, and attacks. I know you are en

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes: > Russ Allbery writes ("Re: support for merged /usr in Debian"): >> What will kill Debian faster than anything else is to have every idea >> for changing something large, interesting, or possibly revolutionary

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Wed, 06 Jan 2016 00:03:31 +0100, Philipp Kern wrote: >On 2016-01-04 11:30, Marc Haber wrote: >> On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 22:30:24 +0100, Eric Valette >> wrote: >>> System admins do like using absolute path >>> for security reasons... >> Please also notice

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On 01/08/2016 09:41 AM, Marc Haber wrote: > On Wed, 06 Jan 2016 00:03:31 +0100, Philipp Kern > wrote: >> On 2016-01-04 11:30, Marc Haber wrote: >>> On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 22:30:24 +0100, Eric Valette >>> wrote: System admins do like using absolute path

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 13:51:48 +0100, Christian Seiler wrote: >On 01/04/2016 12:15 PM, Marc Haber wrote: >> On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 12:01:46 +0100, Ansgar Burchardt >>> Remember that / and /usr don't have to reside on the same partition with >>> the usrmerge proposal: they only have

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

]] Christian Seiler > On 01/08/2016 09:41 AM, Marc Haber wrote: > > On Wed, 06 Jan 2016 00:03:31 +0100, Philipp Kern > > wrote: > >> On 2016-01-04 11:30, Marc Haber wrote: > >>> On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 22:30:24 +0100, Eric Valette > >>> wrote: > System

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On 8 January 2016 at 10:21, Marc Haber wrote: >>So let's say you installed lenny and had 512 MiB for / (with separate >>/usr) because you thought back then that it was more than enough (more >>than double the installed size) - and upgrade to Jessie will either run

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On 08/01/16 03:03, Marco d'Itri wrote: > It has been said that some have[citation needed] crappy boot loaders > that do not support loading an initramfs, but you can still embed one in > the kernel binary if you are building your own kernel ... and you'd need to build your own kernel on these

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 13:38:15 +0100, Christian Seiler wrote: >On 01/04/2016 11:41 AM, Marc Haber wrote: >> On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 13:28:14 -0800, Russ Allbery >> wrote: >>> I do understand why people working in the embedded space care about some >>> unusual mount

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 18:37:11 +0100, Christian Seiler wrote: >On 01/08/2016 10:21 AM, Marc Haber wrote: >> If hundreds of megabytes of software would get moved from /usr to /, >> this would certainly overflow my root file systems. > >That is not what is going to happen. Nobody

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 06:38:05PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 15:01:53 +, Jonathan Dowland > wrote: > >and since you are running sid anyway, it wouldn't even help you, so > >I'm puzzled why you suggested it. > > You obviously don't see the difference

keyscript (was: Re: support for merged /usr in Debian)

On 01/08/2016 09:50 AM, Marc Haber wrote: > The loss of keyscript just broke my clients. I had an inspiration earlier and hacked this together: https://gist.github.com/chris-se/9c0def7dca60d023d188 (Warning: not thoroughly tested, code is a quick hack and awful, might do unexpected things. Also

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 15:42:07 +, Niels Thykier wrote: > Given the latter half of our >freeze tends to involve mostly frustration, fragmentation of developers >and very few bug fixes, I am personally one of the people, who would >like to see Debian have shorter freezes[1].

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 17:54:49 +, Jonathan McDowell wrote: >You're not communicating clearly and this is indeed causing problems in >this thread. You said "all my clients run unstable", not "all my client >machines run unstable". You've also later said "I've not installed any

Re: keyscript (was: Re: support for merged /usr in Debian)

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 18:51:20 +0100, Christian Seiler wrote: >(Warning: not thoroughly tested, code is a quick hack and awful, might >do unexpected things. Also not documented. Quick howto: run make, copy >systemd-keyscript-cryptsetup to /lib/cryptsetup/, copy

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Svante Signell writes: > No you are not. Debian following the commercial vendor track will make > them extinguished. Technically there are no real advantages of the new > (in many youngsters mind revolutionary) ideas. The idea of a Debian > Universal Operating System,

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Jan 08 2016, Tobias Frost wrote: > Am Freitag, den 08.01.2016, 09:14 -0800 schrieb Nikolaus Rath: >>  Debian is developed by its developers, not by its users. Do you have >> any evidence (other than your opinion) that loss of users would cause >> loss of development work? > >

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Simon McVittie wrote: > 0m24.5s DEBUG: Starting command: ['adequate', '--root', > '/srv/piuparts.debian.org/tmp/tmpk5ZNdX', 'iputils-ping'] > 0m24.6s DUMP: > iputils-ping: bin-or-sbin-binary-requires-usr-lib-library /bin/ping6 > => /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgnutls-openssl.so.27 > > I don't

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Fri, 2016-01-08 at 19:15 +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > Quite some developers are getting paid to be Debian users or by > Debian > users. We participate in Debian because it makes using Debian easier > for the people who pay us.On Fri, 08 Jan 2016 09:14:45 -0800, > Nikolaus Rath

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Fri, 2016-01-08 at 09:14 -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > On Jan 08 2016, Svante Signell wrote: > > The problem is that with Debian heading down this road, the Debian > > GNU/Linux distribution will not exist in 5 years from now. > > Debian is developed by its

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Am Freitag, den 08.01.2016, 09:14 -0800 schrieb Nikolaus Rath: >  > Debian is developed by its developers, not by its users. Do you have > any > evidence (other than your opinion) that loss of users would cause > loss > of development work? Our priorities are our users and free software We will

md5(3bsd) (was: Re: support for merged /usr in Debian)

On Jan 08, Robert Edmonds wrote: > If it really does need to do MD5, maybe it could use the one in libbsd0 > instead of dragging in libgnutls-openssl27 and its dependencies. I did not notice this recent addition... Folks, there is *a lot* of software which embeds copies of

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Fri, 08 Jan 2016 09:14:45 -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote: >On Jan 08 2016, Svante Signell wrote: >> The problem is that with Debian heading down this road, the Debian GNU/Linux >> distribution will not exist in 5 years from now. > >Debian is developed

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

* Stephan Seitz [Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 11:18:41AM +0100]: > On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 10:11:07AM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > >grml is packaged and is an apt-get away. It's third-party in just the > >same way that the linux kernel, or exim are. > Wrong. You have a wrapper package that adds grml

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Fri, 2016-01-08 at 10:11 +, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 10:21:00AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > > The upside of this is that this will free up space in / which will be > > needed for a dedicated recovery image. Too bad that we don't have such > > a thing ourselves and

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

* Ian Campbell [Fri Jan 08, 2016 at 10:22:01AM +]: > On Fri, 2016-01-08 at 10:11 +, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 10:21:00AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > > > The upside of this is that this will free up space in / which will be > > > needed for a dedicated recovery

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 01:31:12PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > What will kill Debian faster than anything else is to have every idea for > changing something large, interesting, or possibly revolutionary in Debian > be met with anger, derision, and attacks. Hear, hear. I snipped out the rest of

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 02:07:35 +0100, Christian Seiler wrote: >On 01/05/2016 01:34 AM, Marc Haber wrote: >> On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 22:21:06 +0100, Iustin Pop >> wrote: >>> On 2016-01-04 12:03:07, Marc Haber wrote: On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 19:15:18 +0100,

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 10:21:00AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > The upside of this is that this will free up space in / which will be > needed for a dedicated recovery image. Too bad that we don't have such > a thing ourselves and have to recommend third-party products like grml grml is packaged

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 08:16:06AM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > The problem is that with Debian heading down this road, the Debian GNU/Linux > distribution will not exist in 5 years from now. You will make yourselves > extinct due to the competition from commercial alternatives. You greatly

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 10:11:07AM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote: grml is packaged and is an apt-get away. It's third-party in just the same way that the linux kernel, or exim are. Wrong. You have a wrapper package that adds grml iso from /boot/grml to the grub.cfg. You have to download the

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 14:15:21 +0100, Christian Seiler wrote: >On 01/04/2016 11:44 AM, Marc Haber wrote: >> On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 21:35:39 +0100, Christian Seiler >> wrote: >>> So that was the state in February of 2011, when the warning was added >>> to systemd

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Marc Haber writes: > Keep support for things that used to work for, say, at least three or > four stable releases, document that and commit to it. And, of course, > stick to it. So at approx 2 years per stable release, that would be around 6 to 8 years before we

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 09:50:56AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > The loss of keyscript just broke my clients. I am really afraid of the > first system update breaking my _servers_, causing a resinstall to be > necessary. I know of one customer who already said that if a reinstall > will become

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 13:04:16 +, Riku Voipio wrote: >On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 09:50:56AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: >> The loss of keyscript just broke my clients. I am really afraid of the >> first system update breaking my _servers_, causing a resinstall to be >> necessary. I

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 14:24:52 +0100, Christian Seiler wrote: > - Instead it was proposed to use password agents (see [1]) for this. > > - Problem with that is that the password agents don't support > arbitrary binary data, which is needed for keys (they only support > plain

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Riku Voipio: > On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 09:50:56AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: >> The loss of keyscript just broke my clients. I am really afraid of the >> first system update breaking my _servers_, causing a resinstall to be >> necessary. I know of one customer who already said that if a reinstall >>

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 11:49:48AM +0100, Michael Prokop wrote: We've an open wishlist bug report for the "download the Grml ISO" part (#754393) which we plan to resolve soonish, jfyi. Ah, thank you very much. That still leaves the space problem. Only my newer systems where I knew that I

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:44:17 +0100, Christian Seiler wrote: >On 01/08/2016 09:41 AM, Marc Haber wrote: >> On Wed, 06 Jan 2016 00:03:31 +0100, Philipp Kern >> wrote: >>> On 2016-01-04 11:30, Marc Haber wrote: On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 22:30:24 +0100, Eric

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Jan 08, Marc Haber wrote: > important functionality maked as "broken", "obsolete" and eventually > removed, just as the keyscript= feature of /etc/crypttab was lost a > year ago (noone cared). Let's be clear here: nobody cared enough to implement it. It was

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 12:53:43 +0100, m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote: >On Jan 08, Marc Haber wrote: >> important functionality maked as "broken", "obsolete" and eventually >> removed, just as the keyscript= feature of /etc/crypttab was lost a >> year ago (noone

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Fri, 08 Jan 2016 21:20:21 +1100, Brian May wrote: >Marc Haber writes: >> Keep support for things that used to work for, say, at least three or >> four stable releases, document that and commit to it. And, of course, >> stick to it. > >So at

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On 01/08/2016 12:53 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Jan 08, Marc Haber wrote: > >> important functionality maked as "broken", "obsolete" and eventually >> removed, just as the keyscript= feature of /etc/crypttab was lost a >> year ago (noone cared). > Let's be clear

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 10:32:03 +0100, Andrew Shadura wrote: >Marc, please re-read the whole thread from the very beginning. Nobody >forces merged /usr on you. Enough trust has been lost in the past years that I'd like to have a commitment for that. Write it down, and I'm fine.

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 03:13:12PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > All _my_ clients run unstable anyway I'll leave the obvious response here to others. But, what I find odd about this is you've suggested that there should be a *multi-release* transition for a change like this, more than once in the

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 11:18:41AM +0100, Stephan Seitz wrote: > Wrong. You have a wrapper package that adds grml iso from /boot/grml to the > grub.cfg. You have to download the grml images yourself and you need the > space to save the images in /boot/grml. Thanks for explaining: I was under the

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Marc Haber: > Debian has already been forked by people who found Debian's release > cycles too long. The result is called Ubuntu, and we lost many of the > users (and developers!) who want shorter release cycles to them. > > Now, we aim for shorter release cycles ourselves, which won't bring >

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 15:01:53 +, Jonathan Dowland wrote: >and since you are running sid anyway, it wouldn't even help you, so I'm puzzled >why you suggested it. You obviously don't see the difference between a customer, a client machine and a server. This might be a matter of

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On 01/08/2016 10:21 AM, Marc Haber wrote: > On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 13:38:15 +0100, Christian Seiler > wrote: >> On 01/04/2016 11:41 AM, Marc Haber wrote: >>> We have already shown how "much" we care about the users of non-Linux >>> kernels in Debian ("not at all, they can happily

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Jan 08 2016, Svante Signell wrote: > On Thu, 2016-01-07 at 22:46 +0100, Philip Hands wrote: >> Marc Haber writes: >> >> > On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 19:37:03 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: >> > > On Jan 05, Ian Jackson

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On 07/01/16 08:36, Paul Wise wrote: > $something should > automatically manage the contents of /bin /sbin /lib (/boot?) based on > the tools needed to mount /usr (perhaps plus some more recovery > tools) I really don't think that's a good approach, particularly as a default. We already have tools

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

Marc Haber writes: > Unfortunately, it's emotions that take vendor decisions. Your attitude > is driving big users towards the paid-for Enterprise Linuxes, be it > logical or not, be it good engineering or not. ...the ones that have already merged /usr and /? I'm

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

While reading the LWN article about this, I had a thought that might be interesting. The packages should all install to /usr and $something should automatically manage the contents of /bin /sbin /lib (/boot?) based on the tools needed to mount /usr (perhaps plus some more recovery tools), just

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Jan 08, Paul Wise wrote: > The idea was for those who don't want an initramfs or can't use an > initramfs (someone mentioned some Debian platforms can't) but still All platforms can use an initramfs. It has been said that some have[citation needed] crappy boot loaders that

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 7:16 AM, Simon McVittie wrote: > I really don't think that's a good approach, particularly as a default. > We already have tools to make a minimal bootable environment that can > mount /usr and do some limited recovery, and the result is called an > initramfs. If you want a

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 09:57:26 +, Jonathan Dowland wrote: >On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 06:20:42PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Marco d'Itri wrote: >> >> > https://wiki.debian.org/UsrMerge >> >> Now that we have union mounts in Linux > >Do you mean

Re: overlayfs (was: Re: support for merged /usr in Debian)

I am using overlayFS in Limba[1], and it works well (and is really fast!) for read-only filesystems, read-write sometimes has issues if you are using multiple OverlayFS layers (which made me adjust the code so this doesn't happen anymore). 2016-01-06 17:29 GMT+01:00 Jonathan Dowland

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Thu, 07 Jan 2016 14:48:56 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: >Marc Haber writes: >> Unfortunately, it's emotions that take vendor decisions. Your attitude >> is driving big users towards the paid-for Enterprise Linuxes, be it >> logical or not, be it

  1   2   3   >