On Feb 16, Simon McVittie <s...@debian.org> wrote: > To be clear, what Guillem means by "a proper /usr-merged migration" > here is changing individual library packages, so that the path to their Everything I suppose, not just libraries.
> I think we have consensus that consolidating all static OS files into /usr > (removing the distinction between /usr and the static parts of the root > filesystem) is the route that Debian is taking. I think we do not have > consensus on how that is to be achieved. Do we really have a consensus? Is everybody persuaded now that there is no point in continuing to support non-merged systems? > I would be grateful if people who advocate transitioning individual > packages, and people who consider the approach taken by usrmerge and > debootstrap to be sufficient, could refer to their preferred route in a > way that makes it clear which one they are advocating. Saying we should I never considered usrmerge (the package) to be the complete solution but only a transition method. I fully support plans to start moving everything from /bin /sbin /lib to /usr, but I did not want to wait the many years that this will take to have a real merged-/usr system. Libraries are easy to move since the linker will find them no matter where they are installed, but moving the binaries too will require merging older systems. And to do this we need some work in the usrmerge package. Short summary: it used to work very well on a live system, but nowadays systemd creates a lot of bind mounts so it should be run from the initramfs. But I have not been able to actually do this: if anybody wants to have a look at it there is a branch in the repository. I see no point in only moving libraries. -- ciao, Marco
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
