Re: [DNG] Devuan with usr merge?
On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 07:42:18PM +0100, al3xu5 via Dng wrote: > > My suspected is that the (totally unecessary) usr-merge decision made by > Debian will force (almost) all its derivatives to adapt even if they > despite. > > This is because maintaining a derived distribution rejecting usr-merge > would become too complex and onerous... Possibly as difficult as changing the entire OS *to* usr-merge. -- hendrik ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Devuan with usr merge?
Sat, 13 Nov 2021 17:24:51 -0500 - Steve Litt : > k...@aspodata.se said on Sat, 13 Nov 2021 22:28:02 +0100 (CET) > > >James Cloos: > >> > John Morris via Dng writes: > >> > So yes, it is time to eliminate /bin, /sbin and /lib. > >> the real result shod be eliminate /usr. > > > >Guys, please don't push unnessary changes and policies > >to the user. Let each and everyone be the master of his/her > >own systems. > > Ex-actly! > > > > >Just because debian wants to go that route doesn't mean > >it has to be engraved as a policy for devuan. > > If it's possible to diverge from Debian's usr merge with Devuan's given > (wo)manpower, I agree. I totally agree. > Starting somewhere in the 00's, Debian started > making a lot of bad decisions. Indeed. > By the way, for the person who really wants the usr merge, wouldn't the > conversion from an unmerged system consist of two mass copies and a few > symlinks? > > SteveT Unfortunately things seem to be rather more complex, as some people have pointed out in this discussion: Sat, 13 Nov 2021 23:29:16 +0100 - Martin Steigerwald : > Steve Litt - 13.11.21, 23:24:51 CET: > > By the way, for the person who really wants the usr merge, wouldn't > > the conversion from an unmerged system consist of two mass copies and > > a few symlinks? > > No. > > At least not if you like dpkg to be working fine. As I noted before, see: > > https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg/MergedUsr My suspected is that the (totally unecessary) usr-merge decision made by Debian will force (almost) all its derivatives to adapt even if they despite. This is because maintaining a derived distribution rejecting usr-merge would become too complex and onerous... Best regards al3xu5 -- Say NO to copyright, patents, trademarks and industrial design restrictions! Public GPG/PGP key: 8FC2 3121 2803 86E9 F7D8 B624 DA50 835B 2624 A36B pgppt2vdPgowm.pgp Description: Firma digitale OpenPGP ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Devuan with usr merge?
Le 16/11/2021 à 01:44, Florian Zieboll via Dng a écrit : > On Mon, 15 Nov 2021 21:19:08 +0100 > Antoine via Dng wrote: >> For what it's worth, I can confirm this : I ran a BeagleBoneBlack >> build of Devuan for a while and was rather surprised one day to >> discover that it had no kernel package installed at all. The kernel >> and initramfs where packed into a u-boot file and once loaded, the OS >> didn't care. > As I use to do a minimal *.bian install on my SoC hardware, which I > afterwards move to the Devuan repositories, while keeping the related > original "firmware" repository, I must confess that the whole > "embedded"-thing is still somewhat unclear to me, at least regarding kernel > and firmware updates. I'd be more than happy to get a hint towards an honest > introduction to this topic. > This takes some learning by experimentation. The first lesson is to install a Devuan distro in an empty directory which will become the root directory of the new system. Then you can use it by the mean of chroot. The way to install the distro in this directory is debootstrap. Debootstrap, as its name tells, is the bootstrap of the installation of a Debian distro. When you execute chroot, you change the whole userspace, but you still run the same kernel. From your chroot you can continue the install wih apt-get. There are other ways to install a distro than debootstrap, but debootstrap is usefull to learn. Of course, if you want to install the distro for another architecture, you must use debootstrap --foreign and, then you cannot switch to it with chroot. It's a little more work and you need a kernel and understanding how the kernel passes control to userspace. To compile the kernel, download a source from kernel.org, look at howtos and readme files, prepare for a build "out of tree", start from the config of a known kernel, like the one you are currently running, run menuconfig (eg) and compile. There are a lot of tricks to learn but you can only learn them by experimentation I cannot list all of them because I used to do that many years ago. It's time-consuming but, after that you fill more comfortable. Another experiment with great fun is to just install busybox in a chroot. Build a monolithic version of Busybox statically linked against musl libc and "install" it with symbolic links. You get a fully functional non-GUI Linux OS; it's simply amazing. Just Busybox + kernel can also be the starting point of an install. To summarize, a linux OS needs kernel + some userspace application. To go further, the first thing the application must do is to mount /proc and /sys. If you have a hotplugger (eudev for Debian, mdev for Busybox), then you should also mount /dev and /dev/pts and launch the hotplugger. This applies if the OS is standalone; in a chroot, just mount these /proc, /sys, /dev, /dev/pts as copies of the ones of the main OS, using mount --bind. I wish to every Linux fan to live this adventure. -- Didier ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Devuan with usr merge?
On Mon, 15 Nov 2021 21:19:08 +0100 Antoine via Dng wrote: > > For what it's worth, I can confirm this : I ran a BeagleBoneBlack > build of Devuan for a while and was rather surprised one day to > discover that it had no kernel package installed at all. The kernel > and initramfs where packed into a u-boot file and once loaded, the OS > didn't care. As I use to do a minimal *.bian install on my SoC hardware, which I afterwards move to the Devuan repositories, while keeping the related original "firmware" repository, I must confess that the whole "embedded"-thing is still somewhat unclear to me, at least regarding kernel and firmware updates. I'd be more than happy to get a hint towards an honest introduction to this topic. Libre Grüße, Florian ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Devuan with usr merge?
On Saturday, 13 November at 22:31, Didier Kryn wrote: Le 13/11/2021 à 20:46, Steve Litt a écrit : (snip) Hi Karl, I think it's more than just a little time. Every time the kernel updates, you need to get the new kernel's source, recompile, and replace the new kernel. It *is* an interesting idea though. AFAIR you can install a Debian/Devuan system without installing a kernel package. I did it still a decade ago on Powerpc-based SBCs: I compiled my own kernel and built my own initramfs and it prepared the system in a way that mimicked what Debian was expecting to find after the pivot-root. I did it with a custom initramfs because the boards were diskless but you can always do all this initial preparation from a dedicated partition if you prefer. The thing is after that you must switch to Debian proper by a pivot-root or switch-root. (snip) For what it's worth, I can confirm this : I ran a BeagleBoneBlack build of Devuan for a while and was rather surprised one day to discover that it had no kernel package installed at all. The kernel and initramfs where packed into a u-boot file and once loaded, the OS didn't care. - Antoine -- The great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from. ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Devuan with usr merge?
Steve Litt - 13.11.21, 23:24:51 CET: > By the way, for the person who really wants the usr merge, wouldn't > the conversion from an unmerged system consist of two mass copies and > a few symlinks? No. At least not if you like dpkg to be working fine. As I noted before, see: https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg/MergedUsr -- Martin ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Devuan with usr merge?
k...@aspodata.se said on Sat, 13 Nov 2021 22:28:02 +0100 (CET) >James Cloos: >> > John Morris via Dng writes: >> > So yes, it is time to eliminate /bin, /sbin and /lib. >> the real result shod be eliminate /usr. > >Guys, please don't push unnessary changes and policies >to the user. Let each and everyone be the master of his/her >own systems. Ex-actly! > >Just because debian wants to go that route doesn't mean >it has to be engraved as a policy for devuan. If it's possible to diverge from Debian's usr merge with Devuan's given (wo)manpower, I agree. Starting somewhere in the 00's, Debian started making a lot of bad decisions. By the way, for the person who really wants the usr merge, wouldn't the conversion from an unmerged system consist of two mass copies and a few symlinks? SteveT Steve Litt Spring 2021 featured book: Troubleshooting Techniques of the Successful Technologist http://www.troubleshooters.com/techniques ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Devuan with usr merge?
Le 13/11/2021 à 20:46, Steve Litt a écrit : > k...@aspodata.se said on Sat, 13 Nov 2021 12:42:51 +0100 (CET) > >> Steve Litt: >>> John Morris via Dng said on Fri, 12 Nov 2021 17:26:52 -0600 On Tue, 2021-11-09 at 01:56 -0500, Steve Litt wrote: >> ... The size of the OS is just so small now, compared to storage media and data files. Even a small SSD will easily hold all of /usr for all but the most bloated installs on old obsolete storage media. So simply including /usr in the root filesystem makes sense for almost all use cases. >> Size is not the only reason. >> You might want to have a separation for other reason. >> >> ... >>> Which brings up another beef I have: Why don't they build Ext4 and >>> maybe a couple other mainstream filesystems into the kernel, so if I >>> want, I can boot without initramfs? What would it cost? >> ... >> >> I use it all the time. >> >> Just do it yourself, it just cost you a little time, or do you >> volunteer to maintain a such kernel for devuan ? > Hi Karl, > > I think it's more than just a little time. Every time the kernel > updates, you need to get the new kernel's source, recompile, and > replace the new kernel. > > It *is* an interesting idea though. > AFAIR you can install a Debian/Devuan system without installing a kernel package. I did it still a decade ago on Powerpc-based SBCs: I compiled my own kernel and built my own initramfs and it prepared the system in a way that mimicked what Debian was expecting to find after the pivot-root. I did it with a custom initramfs because the boards were diskless but you can always do all this initial preparation from a dedicated partition if you prefer. The thing is after that you must switch to Debian proper by a pivot-root or switch-root. AFAIR, what the Debian init sequence (starting after pivot-root) expects is to find /, /proc /sys, /run and /dev already mounted. And for what regards the kernel, you upgrade it at your own pace, following your own needs. It is essentially decoupled from the rest of the distro. -- Didier -- Didier -- Didier ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Devuan with usr merge?
James Cloos: > > John Morris via Dng writes: > > So yes, it is time to eliminate /bin, /sbin and /lib. > the real result shod be eliminate /usr. Guys, please don't push unnessary changes and policies to the user. Let each and everyone be the master of his/her own systems. Just because debian wants to go that route doesn't mean it has to be engraved as a policy for devuan. Regards, /Karl Hammar ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Devuan with usr merge?
k...@aspodata.se said on Sat, 13 Nov 2021 12:42:51 +0100 (CET) >Steve Litt: >> John Morris via Dng said on Fri, 12 Nov 2021 17:26:52 -0600 >> >On Tue, 2021-11-09 at 01:56 -0500, Steve Litt wrote: >... >> >The size of the OS is just so small now, compared to storage media >> >and data files. Even a small SSD will easily hold all of /usr for >> >all but the most bloated installs on old obsolete storage media. >> >So simply including /usr in the root filesystem makes sense for >> >almost all use cases. > >Size is not the only reason. >You might want to have a separation for other reason. > >... >> Which brings up another beef I have: Why don't they build Ext4 and >> maybe a couple other mainstream filesystems into the kernel, so if I >> want, I can boot without initramfs? What would it cost? >... > >I use it all the time. > >Just do it yourself, it just cost you a little time, or do you >volunteer to maintain a such kernel for devuan ? Hi Karl, I think it's more than just a little time. Every time the kernel updates, you need to get the new kernel's source, recompile, and replace the new kernel. It *is* an interesting idea though. SteveT Steve Litt Spring 2021 featured book: Troubleshooting Techniques of the Successful Technologist http://www.troubleshooters.com/techniques ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Devuan with usr merge?
> John Morris via Dng writes: > So yes, it is time to eliminate /bin, /sbin and /lib. the real result shod be eliminate /usr. system packages should all use --prefix=/, local ones should default to --prefix=/local, and closed src crap^Wstuff should use things like /opt/FOO for a prefix. linux, like att, calls bsd's /usr /home. the ample disk sizes mean /usr has lost its value and should be gone. > Wish I could say the same thing about the X11 vs Wayland divide. See > the cold logic and theory in the Wayland argument but keep looking at > the current reality and Wayland comes up short. wayland has too many design flaws ever to be reasonsable. weston might be salvagable, at least as a basis for a proper av compositor. but what we need for that space is a daemon whose sole purpose is providing interconnection between clients. like a sip proxy with a better protocol. unix, ip/udp and ip/tcp sockets at least, perhaps sctp and dccp, too. both proxy-style and enabling the two to negotiate direct sockets. but all type sockets by default and from the start. when they use unix sockets the can exchange a FD and there by arrange shared memory should that be userful. but ip sockets must remain fully usable for everything. input, for example should be clients. one for archaic stuff, by way of the kernel, like the pre-usb stuff. plus one daemon for each usb device. and eventually for ethernet-connected devices. (802.2cg w/ lp-wan style ipv6 would work very well for input devices. and ch for things like camaras.) wayland's anti-network design, and not having things like input also be clients make it too broken for a useful future. (of course cg's 10 Mbit bandwidth mean normal ip/ethernet also would work, but lp-wan's 127-octet mtu and therefor smaller v6 packets may be better for simple input devices and input's real-time nature.) -JimC -- James Cloos OpenPGP: 0x997A9F17ED7DAEA6 ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Devuan with usr merge?
Am Samstag, 13. November 2021 schrieb Didier Kryn: > Le 13/11/2021 à 08:48, Didier Kryn a écrit : > > Le 13/11/2021 à 00:26, John Morris via Dng a écrit : > >> So yes, it is time to eliminate /bin, /sbin and /lib. > > > > Seems I've got it wrong. My understanding was that /usr/bin and > > /usr/sbin were merged into /bin and /sbin. You assume the opposite > > and probably so does Steve. > > > > Needs clarifications. > > > > -- Didier > > I checked and I was wrong, based on the option offered years ago > in Busybox and Buildroot (/usr/bin was a symlink to /bin and > /usr/sbin was an symlink to /sbin). I'm amazed; I find this amazingly > stupid. It just makes no sense because /usr is a nonsense - /usr > means "users' directory", which is now /home) - and I was hopping to > see it disapear. On the opposite, it becomes the actual root of the > OS. Hi Didier, seems you got it (somewhat) wrong again ;-) I've been thinking of /usr as "Unix System Resources", but then I looked it up to be sure… See for yourself. Kind regards, Stefan Cite from Linux Filesystem Hierarchy¹: 1.17. /usr /usr usually contains by far the largest share of data on a system. Hence, this is one of the most important directories in the system as it contains all the user binaries, their documentation, libraries, header files, etc X and its supporting libraries can be found here. User programs like telnet, ftp, etc are also placed here. In the original Unix implementations, /usr was where the home directories of the users were placed (that is to say, /usr/someone was then the directory now known as /home/someone). In current Unices, /usr is where user-land programs and data (as opposed to 'system land' programs and data) are. The name hasn't changed, but it's meaning has narrowed and lengthened from "everything user related" to "user usable programs and data". As such, some people may now refer to this directory as meaning 'User System Resources' and not 'user' as was originally intended. [1] https://tldp.org/LDP/Linux-Filesystem-Hierarchy/html/usr.html ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Devuan with usr merge?
Steve Litt: > John Morris via Dng said on Fri, 12 Nov 2021 17:26:52 -0600 > >On Tue, 2021-11-09 at 01:56 -0500, Steve Litt wrote: ... > >The size of the OS is just so small now, compared to storage media and > >data files. Even a small SSD will easily hold all of /usr for all but > >the most bloated installs on old obsolete storage media. So simply > >including /usr in the root filesystem makes sense for almost all use > >cases. Size is not the only reason. You might want to have a separation for other reason. ... > Which brings up another beef I have: Why don't they build Ext4 and > maybe a couple other mainstream filesystems into the kernel, so if I > want, I can boot without initramfs? What would it cost? ... I use it all the time. Just do it yourself, it just cost you a little time, or do you volunteer to maintain a such kernel for devuan ? Regards, /Karl Hammar ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Devuan with usr merge? initramfs
On Sat, Nov 13, 2021 at 09:32:38AM +0100, Didier Kryn wrote: > > I now understand the concern of Steve: it looks like the beginning > of an attempt to force initramfs on people, even if it is not effective yet. I too dislike having to use initramfs rather than having the essential modules compiled into the kernel. In passing, I can see the problem for distributions, since what is "essential" varies with the user. For example, I usually use f2fs on my SSDs. However, as I understand it, it is difficult to apply firmware fixes to CPUs other than by using initramfs. And firmware fixes are pretty important, not least for security. Have I got this wrong? ael ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Devuan with usr merge?
Le 13/11/2021 à 08:48, Didier Kryn a écrit : > Le 13/11/2021 à 00:26, John Morris via Dng a écrit : >> So yes, it is time to eliminate /bin, /sbin and /lib. > Seems I've got it wrong. My understanding was that /usr/bin and > /usr/sbin were merged into /bin and /sbin. You assume the opposite and > probably so does Steve. > > Needs clarifications. > > -- Didier I checked and I was wrong, based on the option offered years ago in Busybox and Buildroot (/usr/bin was a symlink to /bin and /usr/sbin was an symlink to /sbin). I'm amazed; I find this amazingly stupid. It just makes no sense because /usr is a nonsense - /usr means "users' directory", which is now /home) - and I was hopping to see it disapear. On the opposite, it becomes the actual root of the OS. I now understand the concern of Steve: it looks like the beginning of an attempt to force initramfs on people, even if it is not effective yet. There remains the option to make /usr a symlink to /, let dpkg use it blindly and ignore it in real life. -- Didier -- Didier ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Devuan with usr merge?
Le 13/11/2021 à 00:26, John Morris via Dng a écrit : > So yes, it is time to eliminate /bin, /sbin and /lib. Seems I've got it wrong. My understanding was that /usr/bin and /usr/sbin were merged into /bin and /sbin. You assume the opposite and probably so does Steve. Needs clarifications. -- Didier ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Devuan with usr merge?
John Morris via Dng said on Fri, 12 Nov 2021 17:26:52 -0600 >On Tue, 2021-11-09 at 01:56 -0500, Steve Litt wrote: >> >> The logic is still the same. I need a guaranteed place on the root >> partition to find the programs necessary to mount all the other >> partitions, or else I'll need to run an initramfs. > >Been following this debate. Admit that a few years ago I'd have >reflexively said keep /bin and /sbin but now? The assumptions have >changed so much it no longer makes much sense. > >The size of the OS is just so small now, compared to storage media and >data files. Even a small SSD will easily hold all of /usr for all but >the most bloated installs on old obsolete storage media. So simply >including /usr in the root filesystem makes sense for almost all use >cases. I see what you mean. In fact, I use an SSD for /usr, /etc, /lib etc and mount everything else on spinning rust. As a matter of fact, on my Void Linux installation: === [slitt@mydesk ~]$ ls -ld /usr drwxr-xr-x 10 root root 4096 May 5 2021 /usr [slitt@mydesk ~]$ ls -ld /bin lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 May 4 2021 /bin -> usr/bin [slitt@mydesk ~]$ ls -ld /sbin lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 May 4 2021 /sbin -> usr/bin [slitt@mydesk ~]$ ls -ld /usr/sbin lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 3 May 4 2021 /usr/sbin -> bin [slitt@mydesk ~]$ === So I've been using usr merge for years and I'm still alive. Which brings up another beef I have: Why don't they build Ext4 and maybe a couple other mainstream filesystems into the kernel, so if I want, I can boot without initramfs? What would it cost? Everybody is ooohing and ahhing about sytemd's boot speed. If you want to REALLY improve boot speed, get rid of initramfs and just do mounts and encrypting from files on the root drive. Of course, this means you can't have an encrypted root drive. Well, if you want an encrypted root partition, use an initramfs. > On the other hand, putting everything in /usr makes some >interesting options possible, like making it a read only mount point >except during updates. > >Back in olden days being able to reliably boot into a minimal >environment for rescue and recovery was important. Now a rescue >distribution on a USB stick is far more effective when things go wrong. This isn't how I see it. Needing to look into a running initramfs is awful. Of course, systemd has some kind of periscope to look into the initramfs. If one drives on that side of the road. I'm not saying initramfs (or initrd that preceded it) is completely without use. It brought us Knoppix and all the live CDs that followed. It enables us to have any conceivable encryption or filesystem or filesystem addon such as LVM, on each partition, without jamming the kernel with all sorts of seldom used stuff. All I'm saying is I'd prefer distros don't make initramfs mandatory (without doing all sorts of fancy footwork every time you upgrade your kernel), for those of us with basic systems. >So yes, it is time to eliminate /bin, /sbin and /lib. I won't phrase it quite that strongly, but yeah, given your point about not gaining much from a mounted /usr, it's not a big issue. > >Wish I could say the same thing about the X11 vs Wayland divide. See >the cold logic and theory in the Wayland argument but keep looking at >the current reality and Wayland comes up short. As far as I know, Wayland is the child prodegy of FreeDesktop.Org, one of the most effective sales organizations for systemd, and probably *the* most effective proponent of massive, unnecessary complexification. Hence, I'll ride the X11 train til the bitter end. LOL, and the day I switch to Wayland, my dmenu stops working, and dmenu is probably *the* most important component in my work flow. I use dmenu over 100 times per day. SteveT Steve Litt Spring 2021 featured book: Troubleshooting Techniques of the Successful Technologist http://www.troubleshooters.com/techniques ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Devuan with usr merge?
On Tue, 2021-11-09 at 01:56 -0500, Steve Litt wrote: > > The logic is still the same. I need a guaranteed place on the root > partition to find the programs necessary to mount all the other > partitions, or else I'll need to run an initramfs. Been following this debate. Admit that a few years ago I'd have reflexively said keep /bin and /sbin but now? The assumptions have changed so much it no longer makes much sense. The size of the OS is just so small now, compared to storage media and data files. Even a small SSD will easily hold all of /usr for all but the most bloated installs on old obsolete storage media. So simply including /usr in the root filesystem makes sense for almost all use cases. On the other hand, putting everything in /usr makes some interesting options possible, like making it a read only mount point except during updates. Back in olden days being able to reliably boot into a minimal environment for rescue and recovery was important. Now a rescue distribution on a USB stick is far more effective when things go wrong. So yes, it is time to eliminate /bin, /sbin and /lib. Wish I could say the same thing about the X11 vs Wayland divide. See the cold logic and theory in the Wayland argument but keep looking at the current reality and Wayland comes up short. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Devuan with usr merge?
Le 09/11/2021 à 07:56, Steve Litt a écrit : > The logic is still the same. I need a guaranteed place on the root > partition to find the programs necessary to mount all the other > partitions, or else I'll need to run an initramfs. You just need that the root partition be large enough to contain all of /bin, /sbin, /lib, with includes all applications which were in /usr/bin and /usr/sbin before the merge. This is below 400MB in a basic Devuan desktop. However many of the applications moved from /usr/bin to /bin are dynamically linked with shared libraries in /usr/lib. Is that part of the merge? That would be the biggest part. 2.8G on by Chimaera laptop. That said, I agree that there is some confusion in mixing all applications in the same directory, but, in my mind, it is mostly the question of a sensible organization. -- Didier ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Devuan with usr merge?
Didier Kryn said on Mon, 8 Nov 2021 13:50:25 +0100 >Le 06/11/2021 à 03:03, Steve Litt a écrit : >> Personally, I want a directory, guaranteed not to be a mount point, >> where the statically compiled binaries necessary to bring up the >> system, things like mount and ln and vi and fsck, etc, so if I don't >> want to, I don't have to run an initramfs. > > Hi Steve. It seems you always understand the s of sbin as meaning >"static". it isn't. Look at Devuan binaries in /sbin and /usr/sbin; >they are dynamically linked. s stands for "system". > > # file /bin/mount >/bin/mount: setuid ELF 64-bit LSB pie executable, x86-64, version 1 >(SYSV), dynamically linked, interpreter /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2, >BuildID[sha1]=82eb1fdddc0083f599c4072f4e1a39e28de6c759, for GNU/Linux >3.2.0, stripped > >What is called "interpreter" here is the dynamic linker associated to >the shared version of gcc, the Gnu C library. There is practically no >statically linked application in a Debian distribution, except some >part of debootstrap. Hi Didier, The logic is still the same. I need a guaranteed place on the root partition to find the programs necessary to mount all the other partitions, or else I'll need to run an initramfs. SteveT Steve Litt Spring 2021 featured book: Troubleshooting Techniques of the Successful Technologist http://www.troubleshooters.com/techniques ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Devuan with usr merge?
Didier Kryn - 08.11.21, 13:50:25 CET: > What is called "interpreter" here is the dynamic linker associated to > the shared version of gcc, the Gnu C library. There is practically no > statically linked application in a Debian distribution, except some > part of debootstrap. Well and special packages like bash-static, busybox-static and zsh- static. Nice to have in case you want to do crazy things with your system that might cause interesting breakage like switching a system in place from 32 to 64 bit. -- Martin ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Devuan with usr merge?
On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 13:50:25 +0100 Didier Kryn wrote: > Le 06/11/2021 à 03:03, Steve Litt a écrit : > > Personally, I want a directory, guaranteed not to be a mount point, > > where the statically compiled binaries necessary to bring up the > > system, things like mount and ln and vi and fsck, etc, so if I don't > > want to, I don't have to run an initramfs. > > Hi Steve. It seems you always understand the s of sbin as meaning > "static". it isn't. Look at Devuan binaries in /sbin and /usr/sbin; they > are dynamically linked. s stands for "system". > > # file /bin/mount > /bin/mount: setuid ELF 64-bit LSB pie executable, x86-64, version 1 > (SYSV), dynamically linked, interpreter /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2, > BuildID[sha1]=82eb1fdddc0083f599c4072f4e1a39e28de6c759, for GNU/Linux > 3.2.0, stripped > > What is called "interpreter" here is the dynamic linker associated to > the shared version of gcc, the Gnu C library. There is practically no > statically linked application in a Debian distribution, except some part > of debootstrap. > > -- Didier > Hi, on my system there are just a couple: /bin/sash: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (GNU/Linux), statically linked, BuildID[sha1]=433ea9ce7bb7462db5f83bd9bd4e59535b826cc9, for GNU/Linux 3.2.0, stripped /sbin/e2fsck.static: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (GNU/Linux), statically linked, BuildID[sha1]=b6cb05441d3e0215639e4445ca0d1947ac26ab43, for GNU/Linux 3.2.0, stripped and in the repos: bash-static/stable 5.1-2+b3 amd64 busybox-static/stable 1:1.30.1-6+b3 amd64 cdebootstrap-static/stable 0.7.8+b3 amd64 dar-static/stable 2.6.13-2+b3 amd64 zsh-static/stable 5.8-6+b2 amd64 Ciao, Tito ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Devuan with usr merge?
Le 08/11/2021 à 13:50, Didier Kryn a écrit : > Le 06/11/2021 à 03:03, Steve Litt a écrit : >> Personally, I want a directory, guaranteed not to be a mount point, >> where the statically compiled binaries necessary to bring up the >> system, things like mount and ln and vi and fsck, etc, so if I don't >> want to, I don't have to run an initramfs. > Hi Steve. It seems you always understand the s of sbin as meaning > "static". it isn't. Look at Devuan binaries in /sbin and /usr/sbin; they > are dynamically linked. s stands for "system". > > # file /bin/mount > /bin/mount: setuid ELF 64-bit LSB pie executable, x86-64, version 1 > (SYSV), dynamically linked, interpreter /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2, > BuildID[sha1]=82eb1fdddc0083f599c4072f4e1a39e28de6c759, for GNU/Linux > 3.2.0, stripped > > What is called "interpreter" here is the dynamic linker associated to > the shared version of gcc, the Gnu C library. There is practically no > statically linked application in a Debian distribution, except some part > of debootstrap. > > -- Didier > > Sorry, not gcc, glibc. ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Devuan with usr merge?
Le 06/11/2021 à 03:03, Steve Litt a écrit : > Personally, I want a directory, guaranteed not to be a mount point, > where the statically compiled binaries necessary to bring up the > system, things like mount and ln and vi and fsck, etc, so if I don't > want to, I don't have to run an initramfs. Hi Steve. It seems you always understand the s of sbin as meaning "static". it isn't. Look at Devuan binaries in /sbin and /usr/sbin; they are dynamically linked. s stands for "system". # file /bin/mount /bin/mount: setuid ELF 64-bit LSB pie executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, interpreter /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2, BuildID[sha1]=82eb1fdddc0083f599c4072f4e1a39e28de6c759, for GNU/Linux 3.2.0, stripped What is called "interpreter" here is the dynamic linker associated to the shared version of gcc, the Gnu C library. There is practically no statically linked application in a Debian distribution, except some part of debootstrap. -- Didier ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Devuan with usr merge?
>> On 11/5/21 4:13 PM, Svante Signell via Dng wrote: >>> On Fri, 2021-11-05 at 18:50 +, Alexis PM via Dng wrote: Debian 11 Bullseye is the last Debian release that supports the non- merged-usr layout. It is therefore foreseeable that Devuan 4 Chimaera will also be. >>> >>> I'm not so sure Devuan has to follow Debian with respect to merged- >>> /usr. In my opinion it is more a policy decision to make for the >>> project. It is up to discussion though though. >>> Comments/arguments/opinions are very welcomed. In my previous post I merely quoted Debian's official position. I am not enthusiastic about the change of directory organization/layout, but unlike systemd or wayland, I see no real major problems (except unusual configurations, adapting some legacy code that calls binaries and libraries by their absolute path) and considering the big work that Devuan would imply to revert the adoption of usr-merge by Debian (in the next stables, more in testing, more in sid/ceres) I really prefer Devuan to dedicate its limited resources to offer an operating system that is clean of systemd, without forced dependencies (by window managers, desktops, web browsers and so on) of wayland, pulseaudio and "Poetterings", and as bug free as possible. Best regards. ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Devuan with usr merge?
Harald Arnesen via Dng - 06.11.21, 12:31:16 CET: > william moss via Dng [05/11/2021 22.49]: > > BSD and system V (AT/Bell Labs System Five) switched more than a > > decade ago. > > Certainly not FreeBSD: > > $ uname -or > FreeBSD 13.0-STABLE > > $ ls /bin | wc -l >44 > > $ ls /usr/bin | wc -l > 488 Ah, good that you actually looked :) -- Martin ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Devuan with usr merge?
william moss via Dng [05/11/2021 22.49]: BSD and system V (AT/Bell Labs System Five) switched more than a decade ago. Certainly not FreeBSD: $ uname -or FreeBSD 13.0-STABLE $ ls /bin | wc -l 44 $ ls /usr/bin | wc -l 488 -- Hilsen Harald ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Devuan with usr merge?
william moss via Dng - 05.11.21, 22:49:42 CET: > On 11/5/21 4:13 PM, Svante Signell via Dng wrote: > > On Fri, 2021-11-05 at 18:50 +, Alexis PM via Dng wrote: > >> Debian 11 Bullseye is the last Debian release that supports the > >> non- > >> merged-usr layout. It is therefore foreseeable that Devuan 4 > >> Chimaera > >> will also be. > > > > I'm not so sure Devuan has to follow Debian with respect to merged- > > /usr. In my opinion it is more a policy decision to make for the > > project. It is up to discussion though though. > > Comments/arguments/opinions are very welcomed. […] > BSD and system V (AT/Bell Labs System Five) switched more than a > decade ago. Interesting information. I never checked what they do with other Unixes. > The original intent was for a fast disk for root and less expensive > media for all else. > > This was in the days of Lab Version 6 and 7, later system III and BSD > 4.x. A large disk was 100 MB. > > Once large fast disks of 100GB became inexpensive commodities, the > incentive was gone. I know this background. > None the less, from a personal perspective: > I have been using Unix since lab version 6. I have used BSD since > 4.0, Minix, Ultrix, etc. I have no preference and would suggest that > whatever is easiest for the maintainers/developers of Devuan should be > adopted. I do not have a strong preference either. However… if it is for going usrmerge, then for me it is about doing it properly. To me it seems that the arguments of the dpkg maintainer are quite warranted: https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg/MergedUsr To me it appears that the current default was quite rushed and adopted without discussing its consequences through to the end: base-installer: Allow installing w/o the broken merged-usr-via-symlinks https://bugs.debian.org/923091 And that is one of the main issues I have with how some Systemd developers and supporters approach adopting their ideas – the idea for merged-/usr for Linux was brought in by Systemd people: They use force, if their arguments do not do the trick. If done right, I could even go along with some of the ideas behind Systemd… but for me Systemd still is much more a social and cultural issue than a technical one. The path of adopting Systemd is accompanied with unparalleled arrogance and ignorance and a lot of power struggles. A pattern I currently see in other parts of society as well. Freedom… especially the right to free speech… is the base for everything else. > When the people fear the government there is > tyranny, when the government fears the people > there is liberty. > John Basil Barnhill Very right and very appropriate to remember this in the current times. (P.S.: I suggest moving off from Google Mail… of course it is entirely your decision, but… Google is… in my opinion is not compatible with above citation. Google extends what they now about us… but does not reveal how they do what they do and what they actually do to a large extent.) Ciao, -- Martin ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Devuan with usr merge?
On 11/5/21 4:13 PM, Svante Signell via Dng wrote: > On Fri, 2021-11-05 at 18:50 +, Alexis PM via Dng wrote: >> Debian 11 Bullseye is the last Debian release that supports the non- >> merged-usr layout. It is therefore foreseeable that Devuan 4 Chimaera >> will also be. >> > > I'm not so sure Devuan has to follow Debian with respect to merged- > /usr. In my opinion it is more a policy decision to make for the > project. It is up to discussion though though. > Comments/arguments/opinions are very welcomed. > > Thanks! > ___ > Dng mailing list > Dng@lists.dyne.org > https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng > BSD and system V (AT/Bell Labs System Five) switched more than a decade ago. The original intent was for a fast disk for root and less expensive media for all else. This was in the days of Lab Version 6 and 7, later system III and BSD 4.x. A large disk was 100 MB. Once large fast disks of 100GB became inexpensive commodities, the incentive was gone. None the less, from a personal perspective: I have been using Unix since lab version 6. I have used BSD since 4.0, Minix, Ultrix, etc. I have no preference and would suggest that whatever is easiest for the maintainers/developers of Devuan should be adopted. -- William (Bill) Moss billm...@acm.org NY (USA) Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves. Lord Byron Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are. Benjamin Franklin When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty. John Basil Barnhill ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Devuan with usr merge?
Alexis PM via Dng said on Fri, 5 Nov 2021 18:50:41 + (UTC) > Debian 11 Bullseye is the last Debian release that supports the > non-merged-usr layout. >It is therefore foreseeable that Devuan 4 Chimaera will also be. > >Official Debian information: > >The historical justifications for the filesystem layout with /bin, >/sbin, and /lib directories separate from their equivalents under /usr >no longer apply today; see the Freedesktop.org summary. That's Freedesktop.org's opinion. Freedesktop is also very pro-systemd. Personally, I want a directory, guaranteed not to be a mount point, where the statically compiled binaries necessary to bring up the system, things like mount and ln and vi and fsck, etc, so if I don't want to, I don't have to run an initramfs. Even if /usr is a mountpoint. The usr merge just denies us one more thing we used to be able to do, which is typical of Freedesktop.Org recommended stuff. As far as Debian's "Official Debian information", if Debian always made wise choices, there would be no Devuan. :-) SteveT Steve Litt Spring 2021 featured book: Troubleshooting Techniques of the Successful Technologist http://www.troubleshooters.com/techniques ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Devuan with usr merge?
Martin Steigerwald said on Fri, 05 Nov 2021 15:44:06 +0100 >No need to Cc me. I am subscribed. (I know there are different habits, >so just a friendly information.) Me too. I'm on the list, and people cc'ing me when replying to the list or writing to me and cc'ing the list just complexify my life. SteveT Steve Litt Spring 2021 featured book: Troubleshooting Techniques of the Successful Technologist http://www.troubleshooters.com/techniques ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Devuan with usr merge?
Svante Signell via Dng - 05.11.21, 21:13:10 CET: > On Fri, 2021-11-05 at 18:50 +, Alexis PM via Dng wrote: > > Debian 11 Bullseye is the last Debian release that supports the > > non- > > merged-usr layout. It is therefore foreseeable that Devuan 4 > > Chimaera > > will also be. > > I'm not so sure Devuan has to follow Debian with respect to merged- > /usr. In my opinion it is more a policy decision to make for the > project. It is up to discussion though though. > Comments/arguments/opinions are very welcomed. I wonder what Devuan would do, if Debian packages ship all binaries in /usr. It would need quite some patching to undo it. But for all Devuan Beowulf / Chimaera servers it will be no /usr-merge for me. And for my Devuan Ceres laptops it will be like that for as long as possible. I do not find the link at the moment, but I saw a quite good idea for an alternative to the FHS standard. And this was using /command directory for the currently active binaries, symlinked to packages in /package directory where they contain version numbers. And also some provision for documentation. I do not know how libs where handled tough in this scheme. But in the end an alternative would need to provide a real benefit for me, especially if some breakage is to be expected. With merged /usr I get the breakage… but I do not see much of a benefit at least for the way I use Linux. Best, -- Martin ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Devuan with usr merge?
On Fri, 2021-11-05 at 18:50 +, Alexis PM via Dng wrote: > Debian 11 Bullseye is the last Debian release that supports the non- > merged-usr layout. It is therefore foreseeable that Devuan 4 Chimaera > will also be. > I'm not so sure Devuan has to follow Debian with respect to merged- /usr. In my opinion it is more a policy decision to make for the project. It is up to discussion though though. Comments/arguments/opinions are very welcomed. Thanks! ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Devuan with usr merge?
Debian 11 Bullseye is the last Debian release that supports the non-merged-usr layout. It is therefore foreseeable that Devuan 4 Chimaera will also be. Official Debian information: The historical justifications for the filesystem layout with /bin, /sbin, and /lib directories separate from their equivalents under /usr no longer apply today; see the Freedesktop.org summary. Debian bullseye will be the last Debian release that supports the non-merged-usr layout; for systems with a legacy layout that have been upgraded without a reinstall, the usrmerge package exists to do the conversion if desired. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=841666 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'. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=978636 En viernes, 5 de noviembre de 2021 15:44:21 CET, Martin Steigerwald escribió: Hi Svante. No need to Cc me. I am subscribed. (I know there are different habits, so just a friendly information.) Svante Signell - 05.11.21, 11:26:52 CET: > On Fri, 2021-11-05 at 10:52 +0100, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > Debian 11 defaults to usr merge. So the installed system used usr > > merge. > > > > I suppose Devuan is compatible and will remain compatible with that? > > I think it would be necessary as well some users may migrate from > > buster. Or one would have to find a way to undo the merge, but this > > I think is quite error prone. > > Devuan defaults to non-merged-/usr as far as I know. You can always > install with merged-/usr on Devuan too using the expert install > option. (Personally I prefer non-merged-/usr remains to be the > default.) Yeah… I always install Devuan them without merged-/usr. > > I like to avoid breaking the server VM by undoing usr merge, even > > tough I prefer systems without usr merge. It is easy to do with > > systems where I can use a Devuan ISO for installation, but for this > > system I had the Debian Netinstall ISO and it is what it is. > > You can use the dpkg-fsys-usrunmess, with a dpkg release later than or > equal to 1.20.6, see https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg/MergedUsr > > "For already installed systems (since dpkg 1.20.6) you can also use > the dpkg-fsys-usrunmess program to revert the breakage from these > systems (but beware that it should not be used in systemd's emergency > mode)." > > (I've used that script on two Debian installations successfully > already.) Splendid. Thanks a lot for this. I hesitated, not wanting to cause any further hassle for the admins of the virtualization infrastructure the server VM runs on, but it indeed worked. It appears that… there is… some… discussion about the merged-/usr approach currently taken in Debian. What a mass. Happy I could undo it, although I am in awe for the developer of dpkg- fsys-usrunmess and it feels like I have used a magic wand of some kind. Best, -- Martin ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Devuan with usr merge?
Hi Svante. No need to Cc me. I am subscribed. (I know there are different habits, so just a friendly information.) Svante Signell - 05.11.21, 11:26:52 CET: > On Fri, 2021-11-05 at 10:52 +0100, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > Debian 11 defaults to usr merge. So the installed system used usr > > merge. > > > > I suppose Devuan is compatible and will remain compatible with that? > > I think it would be necessary as well some users may migrate from > > buster. Or one would have to find a way to undo the merge, but this > > I think is quite error prone. > > Devuan defaults to non-merged-/usr as far as I know. You can always > install with merged-/usr on Devuan too using the expert install > option. (Personally I prefer non-merged-/usr remains to be the > default.) Yeah… I always install Devuan them without merged-/usr. > > I like to avoid breaking the server VM by undoing usr merge, even > > tough I prefer systems without usr merge. It is easy to do with > > systems where I can use a Devuan ISO for installation, but for this > > system I had the Debian Netinstall ISO and it is what it is. > > You can use the dpkg-fsys-usrunmess, with a dpkg release later than or > equal to 1.20.6, see https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg/MergedUsr > > "For already installed systems (since dpkg 1.20.6) you can also use > the dpkg-fsys-usrunmess program to revert the breakage from these > systems (but beware that it should not be used in systemd's emergency > mode)." > > (I've used that script on two Debian installations successfully > already.) Splendid. Thanks a lot for this. I hesitated, not wanting to cause any further hassle for the admins of the virtualization infrastructure the server VM runs on, but it indeed worked. It appears that… there is… some… discussion about the merged-/usr approach currently taken in Debian. What a mass. Happy I could undo it, although I am in awe for the developer of dpkg- fsys-usrunmess and it feels like I have used a magic wand of some kind. Best, -- Martin ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Devuan with usr merge?
On Fri, 2021-11-05 at 10:52 +0100, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > Hi! > > I migrated a Debian Buster to Devuan Chimaera by already install runit- > init into /target during Debian installation and then switching over > sources.list to Chimaera. > > Debian 11 defaults to usr merge. So the installed system used usr > merge. > > I suppose Devuan is compatible and will remain compatible with that? I > think it would be necessary as well some users may migrate from > buster. Or one would have to find a way to undo the merge, but this I > think is quite error prone. Devuan defaults to non-merged-/usr as far as I know. You can always install with merged-/usr on Devuan too using the expert install option. (Personally I prefer non-merged-/usr remains to be the default.) > I like to avoid breaking the server VM by undoing usr merge, even tough > I prefer systems without usr merge. It is easy to do with systems where > I can use a Devuan ISO for installation, but for this system I had the > Debian Netinstall ISO and it is what it is. You can use the dpkg-fsys-usrunmess, with a dpkg release later than or equal to 1.20.6, see https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg/MergedUsr "For already installed systems (since dpkg 1.20.6) you can also use the dpkg-fsys-usrunmess program to revert the breakage from these systems (but beware that it should not be used in systemd's emergency mode)." (I've used that script on two Debian installations successfully already.) Thanks! ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
[DNG] Devuan with usr merge?
Hi! I migrated a Debian Buster to Devuan Chimaera by already install runit- init into /target during Debian installation and then switching over sources.list to Chimaera. Debian 11 defaults to usr merge. So the installed system used usr merge. I suppose Devuan is compatible and will remain compatible with that? I think it would be necessary as well some users may migrate from buster. Or one would have to find a way to undo the merge, but this I think is quite error prone. I like to avoid breaking the server VM by undoing usr merge, even tough I prefer systems without usr merge. It is easy to do with systems where I can use a Devuan ISO for installation, but for this system I had the Debian Netinstall ISO and it is what it is. Best, -- Martin ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
