Bug#981582: release-notes: bullseye to be the last release to support non-merged /usr layout

[Andrei POPESCU]

Package: release-notes
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-ctte@lists.debian.org

> Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2020 14:16:58 +0100
> From: Ansgar 
> To: sub...@bugs.debian.org
> Subject: move to merged-usr-only?
> User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.1-2 
> 
> Package: tech-ctte
> X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-de...@lists.debian.org
> 
> Hi,
> 
> as suggested in [1], I would like to see Debian to move to support
> only the merged-usr filesystem layout.  This would simplfy things for
> the future and also address the problem with installing files under
> aliased trees that dpkg has to do for both variants to be supported.
> 
> merged-usr has been the default for new installations since the last
> release and (as far as I am aware) no world-breaking bugs have
> happened since; some environments such as buildd chroots still do not
> use merged-usr.
> 
> I would like to ask the technical committee to decide whether we want
> to move to merged-usr-only.  It seems to be a case of overlapping
> jurisdiction (6.1.2 in the constitution).
> 
> I'm not asking the committee to decide on a concrete technical
> implementation for this.  Obviously we would need to also implement a
> migration path for legacy installations for a move to merged-usr-only
> to be implemented.  This also isn't relevant for Debian 11 (bullseye),
> but I would like to have enough time in the Debian 12 (bookworm)
> cycle.
> 
> Ansgar
> 
> [1]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2020/11/#00232
>  continued in December: 
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2020/12/#00386

> Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2021 10:13:11 -0700
> From: Sean Whitton 
> To: 978636-d...@bugs.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Bug#978636: move to merged-usr-only?
> 
> Hello,
> 
> On Mon 25 Jan 2021 at 11:45AM -07, Sean Whitton wrote:
> 
> > I call for votes on the following ballot to resolve #978636.  The voting
> > period starts immediately and lasts for up to one week, or until the
> > outcome is no longer in doubt (§6.3.1).
> 
> The vote has concluded.
> 
> Marga, David, Niko, Gunnar, Simon, Elana and myself all voted: YFN.
> 
> Therefore:
> 
> The Technical Committee resolves that Debian 'bookworm' should
> support only the merged-usr root filesystem layout, dropping support
> for the non-merged-usr layout.
> 
> Until after the release of 'bullseye', any implementation of this
> resolution must be done in the 'experimental' distribution, or
> otherwise kept out of the critical paths for the release of
> 'bullseye'.
> 
> -- 
> Sean Whitton

This should probably be documented in the Release Notes for bullseye (as 
the last release to support the non-merged /usr layout).

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#978636: marked as done (move to merged-usr-only?)

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Mon, 01 Feb 2021 10:13:11 -0700
with message-id <87r1lz7lug@melete.silentflame.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#978636: move to merged-usr-only?
has caused the Debian Bug report #978636,
regarding move to merged-usr-only?
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
978636: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=978636
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: tech-ctte
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-de...@lists.debian.org

Hi,

as suggested in [1], I would like to see Debian to move to support
only the merged-usr filesystem layout.  This would simplfy things for
the future and also address the problem with installing files under
aliased trees that dpkg has to do for both variants to be supported.

merged-usr has been the default for new installations since the last
release and (as far as I am aware) no world-breaking bugs have
happened since; some environments such as buildd chroots still do not
use merged-usr.

I would like to ask the technical committee to decide whether we want
to move to merged-usr-only.  It seems to be a case of overlapping
jurisdiction (6.1.2 in the constitution).

I'm not asking the committee to decide on a concrete technical
implementation for this.  Obviously we would need to also implement a
migration path for legacy installations for a move to merged-usr-only
to be implemented.  This also isn't relevant for Debian 11 (bullseye),
but I would like to have enough time in the Debian 12 (bookworm)
cycle.

Ansgar

[1]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2020/11/#00232
 continued in December: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2020/12/#00386
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello,

On Mon 25 Jan 2021 at 11:45AM -07, Sean Whitton wrote:

> I call for votes on the following ballot to resolve #978636.  The voting
> period starts immediately and lasts for up to one week, or until the
> outcome is no longer in doubt (§6.3.1).

The vote has concluded.

Marga, David, Niko, Gunnar, Simon, Elana and myself all voted: YFN.

Therefore:

The Technical Committee resolves that Debian 'bookworm' should
support only the merged-usr root filesystem layout, dropping support
for the non-merged-usr layout.

Until after the release of 'bullseye', any implementation of this
resolution must be done in the 'experimental' distribution, or
otherwise kept out of the critical paths for the release of
'bullseye'.

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---

Bug#978636: move to merged-usr-only?

[Simon McVittie]

On Mon, 01 Feb 2021 at 13:35:28 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 03:34:27PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > I want to state (and not as part of the vote, but just as
> > yet another DD) that the only way I feel makes sense to continue now
> > is via Simon's ① option: Symlinking /bin → /usr/bin, /lib → /usr/lib,
> > /sbin → /usr/sbin, etc.
> > 
> > That will allow us to take a step later on to mandate packages not
> > shipping files in the no-longer-root-level-directories, but that
> > should be at least one further release cycle down the lane.
> 
> I'd strongly urge the opposite order: FIRST decree that no package may
> ship any file to non-canonical path (ie, have dpkg extract anything over
> a symlink), and only then flip the switch.

I don't want to repeat myself, so please see
 for one
reason why that doesn't work (unless you have a solution that I've
missed).

smcv

Bug#978636: move to merged-usr-only?

[Marco d'Itri]

On Feb 01, Adam Borowski  wrote:

> I'd strongly urge the opposite order: FIRST decree that no package may
> ship any file to non-canonical path (ie, have dpkg extract anything over
> a symlink), and only then flip the switch.
There is no "switch": this decision only certifies what we have been 
doing by default for two releases.
Almost all new Debian systems are already installed this way.

> Contrary to talk about a "20 years transition", I estimate there's just
> ~100 sources that would have to be changed.
Then if you believe that the current situation is troublesome you may 
start now and it will be easy!

-- 
ciao,
Marco


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#978636: move to merged-usr-only?

[Adam Borowski]

On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 03:34:27PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> ...And to be clear: We at the TC are *not* doing detailed design
> work. But I want to state (and not as part of the vote, but just as
> yet another DD) that the only way I feel makes sense to continue now
> is via Simon's ① option: Symlinking /bin → /usr/bin, /lib → /usr/lib,
> /sbin → /usr/sbin, etc.
> 
> That will allow us to take a step later on to mandate packages not
> shipping files in the no-longer-root-level-directories, but that
> should be at least one further release cycle down the lane.

I'd strongly urge the opposite order: FIRST decree that no package may
ship any file to non-canonical path (ie, have dpkg extract anything over
a symlink), and only then flip the switch.

Contrary to talk about a "20 years transition", I estimate there's just
~100 sources that would have to be changed.


Meow!
-- 
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ .--[ Makefile ]
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ # beware of races
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ all: pillage burn
⠈⠳⣄ `

Bug#978636: move to merged-usr-only?

[David Bremner]

Sean Whitton  writes:

> ===BEGIN
> The Technical Committee resolves that Debian 'bookworm' should support
> only the merged-usr root filesystem layout, dropping support for the
> non-merged-usr layout.
>
> Until after the release of 'bullseye', any implementation of this
> resolution must be done in the 'experimental' distribution, or otherwise
> kept out of the critical paths for the release of 'bullseye'.
>
> We do not recommend any particular implementation of the migration.
>
> Y: Yes, support only merged-usr in the 'bookworm' release.
> N: No, continue to support both layouts in 'bookworm'.
> F: Further Discussion
> ===END

I vote

  Y > F > N



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#978636: move to merged-usr-only?

[Margarita Manterola]

Hola Sean Whitton!

> ===BEGIN
> The Technical Committee resolves that Debian 'bookworm' should support
> only the merged-usr root filesystem layout, dropping support for the
> non-merged-usr layout.
> 
> Until after the release of 'bullseye', any implementation of this
> resolution must be done in the 'experimental' distribution, or otherwise
> kept out of the critical paths for the release of 'bullseye'.
> 
> We do not recommend any particular implementation of the migration.
> 
> Y: Yes, support only merged-usr in the 'bookworm' release.
> N: No, continue to support both layouts in 'bookworm'.
> F: Further Discussion
> ===END

I vote:
Y > F > N

With similar caveats as have been raised by others regarding what merged-usr
means. It should mean the same that was described in the previous
resolution[1]. In other words, by symlinking `/{bin,sbin,lib*}/` to
`/usr/{bin,sbin,lib*}/`.

On top of this, the fact that we are not mandating a particular implementation
also means that we are not mandating any particular migration path. The
migration chosen by those doing the implementation might not be finished by the
time of the bookworm release. We are not mandating that it should be, only that
the previous format does not need to be supported anymore.

[1]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2019/03/msg1.html

-- 
Regards,
Marga


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature