>>>>> "Guillem" == Guillem Jover <guil...@debian.org> writes:
Guillem> On Sun, 2019-02-24 at 08:27:20 +0100, Ansgar wrote:
>> Guillem Jover writes: > You are still conflating the concept with
>> the deployment. The > underlaying properties of merging /usr is
>> that the contents for > directories that are present in both /
>> and /usr get merged into > /usr.
>>
>> No, I'm saying that you are proposing yet another different file
>> system layout. Which is quite simple to see: the file system
>> would differ.
>>
>> You just claim it follows similar "ideas" in some way.
Guillem> Again, no, the important part is that the contents get
Guillem> *moved* properly and *automatically* within the .deb
Guillem> packags,
This is the important part to *you*.
Other things are important to other people.
Instead of working to understand their requirements, you are saying
things like "you are still conflating the concept with the deployment."
I ask you to please stop and to instead take the time to understand the
people who disagree with you.
I've found it's a valuable exercise to write up the position of those I
disagree with and get to a point where they say that yes, I've
accurately represented their position.
Then I can talk about why I disagree with that approach.
I urge you to do something similar here.
From where I sit, other people in the discussion actually value ending
up with the symlink from /bin to /usr/bin and from /sbin to /usr/sbin.
I can demonstrate that those symlinks have different technical
properties than a system without those symlinks.
Instead of debating those tradeoffs, you're using language like
"botched the final part," which don't actually lead to building
understanding and actually having a technical debate.
I urge you to work to understand those who disagree with you.
Thanks for your consideration,
--Sam
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
