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 ).
There were 11 mails in the thread I linked as  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
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@ was
>> quite positive; I had some additional positive feedback on IRC.
>>  <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.