Le samedi, 23 février 2019, 12.12:13 h CET Niko Tyni a écrit : > > * B: The desireable solution at the time of bullseye is `hard`; both > > directory schemes should be allowed, and packages can be built on hosts > > with either classical or "merged-`/usr`" directory schemes. > > Isn't this the 'middle' option above rather than 'hard'?
Actually, it's both. The only difference between 'middle' and 'hard' is that
in 'middle', _official_ packages can be built on either directory schemes,
where in 'hard', they are only built on "merged-`/usr`" directory schemes.
The distinction I was trying to make in the table is the following:
* on which directory scheme Debian would build its "official" packages on
(columns 5 & 6) ; 'weak' is "classical directory scheme", 'middle' is "both",
'hard' is "merged-/usr".
* whether .debs built on A can break on B (columns 7 & 8). All of 'weak',
'middle' and 'hard' long-term statuses allow .debs to be built from either
directory scheme and be installed on either without constraints
> FWIW I think I'm OK with recommending 'middle' but 'hard' seems over
> the top. Ideally there should be no difference in building on merged
> /usr hosts vs. classical ones.
I concur with your ideal. I'll add this option on the ballot.
> As for buster and overriding the debootstrap maintainers on the default:
>
> I think being able to do local builds that work on other Debian
> systems with minimal fuss (no chroots etc.) is a desirable property
> but not an absolute requirement. I'd certainly love to see all the
> 'paths_vary_due_to_usrmerge' issues fixed for buster [1].
I concur.
Cheers,
OdyX
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
