(Corrected the recipients, these mails should go to the bug). Le lundi, 25 février 2019, 14.23:31 h CET Didier 'OdyX' Raboud a écrit : > 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
Wrong, actually (hit send too fast). The intent behind 'weak' was: "merged-/
usr" is allowed, but packages built on these directory schemes can break on
classical directory schemes.
So that should have read:
* whether .debs built on A can break on B (columns 7 & 8). 'middle' and 'hard'
long-term statuses allow .debs to be built from either directory scheme and be
installed on either without constraints; 'weak' permits "merged-/usr"
directory schemes, but packages built there can break on classical directory
schemes.
Cheers,
OdyX
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
