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 earlier > in the thread Ansgar links to as [1]).
There were 11 mails in the thread I linked as [1] in my initial mail. None were really negative, just one person wondering if this means / and /usr on separate filesystems is no longer supported (even though I explicitly said it is in my initial mail). Also, switching to merged-/usr, but still supporting non-merged-/usr beyond a transition period means one uses one of the benefits for maintainers no longer having to care where to install libraries or programs (or worse: having to move them between / and /usr because someone would like to use some additional program in early boot or a new upstream release has support for some new feature requiring a library in /usr). I assume the less temperate responses are ones as [no argument]? I don't believe that one shouldn't base any decisions on less temperate responses someone makes on the internet. That way no change ever could be implemented. (What happens when I write less temperate responses to the less temperate responses calling a proposal shit without any argument? Do I invalidate their less temperate response too or is that reserved to the initial less temperate response?) I strongly prefer technical reasons instead, such as the issue with `dpkg -S` that was mentioned by Guillem. [no argument]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2016/01/msg00005.html [...] > Finally, I have to say that I think that this summary from Ansgar > is not really accurate: I think that your summary is far less accurate than mine ;-) >> 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. > ... >> [1] <https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2016/09/msg00269.html> > > That is a link to a message from Russ which mostly explains why > mounting /usr early (ie in the initramfs, by default) is a good idea. > That has now been implemented and has caused very little push-back. No, that's a link to a message by me. > But this bug report requests something entirely different: it is about > actually moving the contents of /bin into /usr/bin, etc. That is also what the linked mail is about. > It is also not fair to say that the discussion was "quite positive". > There was a good deal of opposition of various kinds, much of it > quite heated. Why not? None of the 11 mails was really negative. Ansgar
