On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 21:22:29 +0000, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 11:46:35 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > > The Technical Committee resolves that Debian 'bookworm' should support
> > > only the merged-usr root filesystem layout, dropping support for the
> > > non-merged-usr layout.
> Should we be more specific than this in what we vote on, to avoid
> later having to adjudicate between developers who say that a particular
> implementation is or isn't merged-usr?

Sorry, I had missed that we have prior art for this. When we
resolved #914897 [1] we wrote:

    ## What is "merged `/usr`"

    "Merged `/usr`" describes a possible future standard directories
    scheme in which the `/{bin,sbin,lib*}/` directories have been made
    superfluous through replacing them by symlinks to their `/usr`
    equivalents (`/usr/{bin,sbin,lib*}`).

That's exactly what Guillem calls "merged /usr via aliasing", or the
"layout 1" from my previous mail.

I still think our resolution for #978636 should be clear on what we mean
by merged-usr (like the resolution for #914897 was), but this gives me
more confidence that we did indeed all intend to be voting on mandating
merged /usr via aliasing, vs. not mandating that, vs. further discussion.


[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2019/03/msg00001.html

Reply via email to