Simon Richter: > Hi, > > On 25.08.21 21:45, Sam Hartman wrote: > >> The dpkg maintainer hasn't been happy with the discussions here, and >> I think facilitating to a level where Guillem is part of the >> consensus is beyond my skill. > > The discussion so far has been around the question whether there is > actually a problem and whether it is actually required for the dpkg > database to be consistent with the file system. It is unsurprising that > the dpkg maintainer has an opinion about that. > >> So I don't actually know how to get to something actionable. I do >> believe the chance of breakage if we move around paths inside >> packages is high enough that we should block path canonicalization on >> a dpkg that can handle that, even if that takes a long time. > > We have a few half-baked solution proposals. > > Combining the parts from Ted Ts'o (for usrmerged systems) and mine (for > not-yet usrmerged systems) would be the complex and generic approach. > > I think I've also seen some ideas along the lines of "have the usrmerge > package patch the dpkg database", which would be simpler. > > Would it make sense to start a wiki page? > > Simon >
As I understand it, the "have usrmerge package patch the dpkg database" approach will only work if we ensure that each and every package stop using / in bookworm+1. Else we are back to the same problem that Sam listed with package splits (just with the paths inverted). That is, a solution based on that plan should also involve a plan for getting each and every package affected by the usrmerge updated in bookworm+1. Thanks, ~Niels