Bug#923091: That merged-usr is mandatory is RC
> "Ivo" == Ivo De Decker writes: Ivo> Hi, Given that there is still discussion about the impact of Ivo> merged /usr at this very late point of the freeze, I think Ivo> having merged /usr by default for new installations should be Ivo> reconsidered. What discussion are you seeing other than this discussion here? Things seem to have been fairly quiet on the merged /usr front since the TC decision. What am I missing?
Bug#923091: That merged-usr is mandatory is RC
Hi, Given that there is still discussion about the impact of merged /usr at this very late point of the freeze, I think having merged /usr by default for new installations should be reconsidered. On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 07:22:08AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > I've been debating doing this, but continue to believe that it's > important after several days of pondering. So, per constitution 5.1 > (2), I'd like to explicitly lend support to the idea that it would be > really good if we provide our users a way to install buster without > merged /usr. I think that if we do not do so now, we need to be open to > the possibility that if users are stymied in doing their work, we will > need to do so in a buster point release even if we would not normally > add something some might consider a feature in a point release. > > I'm not speaking to whether I think it should be RC or even whether an > expert only option is good enough. > I am simply saying that with my DPL hat on, I think this issue is > important enough it deserves real consideration. > > > I think that the TC's ruling and ongoing experience suggests we have > carefully considered how we want to approach merged /usr for our own > internal work developing Debian and come to a position that at least for > the moment seems to be working. > > What I'm most concerned about is people who use Debian to develop > software they plan to use on Debian but who are not part of Debian. > Examples of this include people within organizations who build programs > to distribute within their organization. People who build upstream > programs using configure from source. That sort of thing. > > These people may not use packages. These people may not use chroots. People who develop software often do this on different machines than the one the software runs on. When the production server gets upgraded, and a new development machine is installed, one will have merged /usr and the other doesn't. This probably isn't very good. Having an option to change this during the install probably won't help these users. In general, I think that if merged /usr is the default for new installations for a Debian release, it should be the default on upgrades to that release as well. This is not the case for buster. Obviously changing the default on upgrades needs carefull planning and should be started at the beginning of a release cycle. > They are our users; they are our priority. Even if we believe using > chroots or containers would be better for them, I don't think we should > force people into changing their build processes. > > > I don't think we have a good idea how big the impact will be for these > users, and so, I think we should be conservative. > > If we don't choose to be conservative, I think we should be extra > willing to revisit our decision if we find we are wrong. Please note that there were a number of bugs triggered by merged /usr that were discovered during the freeze. Most of them were actual bugs in the packages, but they were (only) triggered with merged /usr. The fact that they were only discovered late in the release cycle isn't a good sign. > Again, all I'm saying is that I think this issue is important enough to > consider seriously. I am not in a position to balance this issue > against other things before us. > I'm speaking as the DPL because I'm trying to consider something that is > a project level concern. However, this statement has no actual force as > clearly spelled out in the constitution. > I'm speaking in the hopes of getting people to take a moment, think > about this issue and come to their own conclusions. Having an option to allow experienced user to change the default doesn't really solve this. So the way forward is to change the default back to not having merged /usr on new installs. Thanks, Ivo
Bug#923091: That merged-usr is mandatory is RC
On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 07:22:08AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Ian" == Ian Jackson writes:
>
> Ian> (sending this because I got the release team address wrong) Ian
> Ian> Jackson writes ("That merged-usr is mandatory is RC"):
> >> In #923091, Guillem (with dpkg maintainer hat on) asks for a
> >> base-installer option to allow installing buster without
> >> merged-usr.
> >>
> >> Guillem filed the bug as `wishlist' but given the controversy it
> >> seems to me that it should be RC if for no other reasons than
> >> social cohesion.
> >>
> >> CCing the TC FYI (they have already been involved in merged-usr
> >> debates via #914897) and the release team, in case they have an
> >> opinion. FAOD I am not a maintainer of base-files but AFAICT the
> >> base-files maintainer has not expressed an opinion about
> >> severity.
>
> I've been debating doing this, but continue to believe that it's
> important after several days of pondering. So, per constitution 5.1
> (2), I'd like to explicitly lend support to the idea that it would be
> really good if we provide our users a way to install buster without
> merged /usr. I think that if we do not do so now, we need to be open to
> the possibility that if users are stymied in doing their work, we will
> need to do so in a buster point release even if we would not normally
> add something some might consider a feature in a point release.
>
> I'm not speaking to whether I think it should be RC or even whether an
> expert only option is good enough.
> I am simply saying that with my DPL hat on, I think this issue is
> important enough it deserves real consideration.
I've posted
https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/base-installer/merge_requests/1
to add a low-priority question for this, following Cyril's advice in
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=923091#10. The text
may not be quite perfect, but I think it's a decent start.
I've deliberately avoided changing the default behaviour in this patch:
its effect is simply to make the behaviour configurable either via
expert mode or using preseeding (by setting base-installer/usrmerge to
false). This is to maximise the chance of being able to get this change
into buster with a minimum of controversy of its own. It is of course
simple to change the default behaviour and/or how prominently the
question is presented by way of follow-up changes, if the project so
chooses.
--
Colin Watson [cjwat...@debian.org]
Bug#923091: That merged-usr is mandatory is RC
> "Ian" == Ian Jackson writes:
Ian> (sending this because I got the release team address wrong) Ian
Ian> Jackson writes ("That merged-usr is mandatory is RC"):
>> Control: severity -1 serious
>>
>> In #923091, Guillem (with dpkg maintainer hat on) asks for a
>> base-installer option to allow installing buster without
>> merged-usr.
>>
>> Guillem filed the bug as `wishlist' but given the controversy it
>> seems to me that it should be RC if for no other reasons than
>> social cohesion.
>>
>> CCing the TC FYI (they have already been involved in merged-usr
>> debates via #914897) and the release team, in case they have an
>> opinion. FAOD I am not a maintainer of base-files but AFAICT the
>> base-files maintainer has not expressed an opinion about
>> severity.
I've been debating doing this, but continue to believe that it's
important after several days of pondering. So, per constitution 5.1
(2), I'd like to explicitly lend support to the idea that it would be
really good if we provide our users a way to install buster without
merged /usr. I think that if we do not do so now, we need to be open to
the possibility that if users are stymied in doing their work, we will
need to do so in a buster point release even if we would not normally
add something some might consider a feature in a point release.
I'm not speaking to whether I think it should be RC or even whether an
expert only option is good enough.
I am simply saying that with my DPL hat on, I think this issue is
important enough it deserves real consideration.
I think that the TC's ruling and ongoing experience suggests we have
carefully considered how we want to approach merged /usr for our own
internal work developing Debian and come to a position that at least for
the moment seems to be working.
What I'm most concerned about is people who use Debian to develop
software they plan to use on Debian but who are not part of Debian.
Examples of this include people within organizations who build programs
to distribute within their organization. People who build upstream
programs using configure from source. That sort of thing.
These people may not use packages. These people may not use chroots.
They are our users; they are our priority. Even if we believe using
chroots or containers would be better for them, I don't think we should
force people into changing their build processes.
I don't think we have a good idea how big the impact will be for these
users, and so, I think we should be conservative.
If we don't choose to be conservative, I think we should be extra
willing to revisit our decision if we find we are wrong.
Again, all I'm saying is that I think this issue is important enough to
consider seriously. I am not in a position to balance this issue
against other things before us.
I'm speaking as the DPL because I'm trying to consider something that is
a project level concern. However, this statement has no actual force as
clearly spelled out in the constitution.
I'm speaking in the hopes of getting people to take a moment, think
about this issue and come to their own conclusions.
--Sam
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Bug#923091: That merged-usr is mandatory is RC
On Mon, 2019-05-13 at 17:24:55 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: > On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 11:22:35AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > > In #923091, Guillem (with dpkg maintainer hat on) asks for a > > base-installer option to allow installing buster without merged-usr. > > No, he did not mention dpkg. Indeed I didn't, even though (as I've mentioned on d-d) I consider any system installed with such layout completely broken from dpkg's PoV. I could not be bothered filing this with an RC severity, given that AFAIR one of the Release Team members uploaded the breaking change, and didn't (and still do not) have the energy or will to get into such an argument over severities and similar. I do still consider this pretty much unsupported from dpkg's PoV though… Thanks, Guillem
Bug#923091: That merged-usr is mandatory is RC
Control: severity -1 wishlist Hi Ian On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 11:22:35AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > In #923091, Guillem (with dpkg maintainer hat on) asks for a > base-installer option to allow installing buster without merged-usr. No, he did not mention dpkg. But as always, please provide a patch and answer kibi's questions. Regards, Bastian -- First study the enemy. Seek weakness. -- Romulan Commander, "Balance of Terror", stardate 1709.2
Bug#923091: That merged-usr is mandatory is RC
(sending this because I got the release team address wrong)
Ian Jackson writes ("That merged-usr is mandatory is RC"):
> Control: severity -1 serious
>
> In #923091, Guillem (with dpkg maintainer hat on) asks for a
> base-installer option to allow installing buster without merged-usr.
>
> Guillem filed the bug as `wishlist' but given the controversy it seems
> to me that it should be RC if for no other reasons than social
> cohesion.
>
> CCing the TC FYI (they have already been involved in merged-usr
> debates via #914897) and the release team, in case they have an
> opinion. FAOD I am not a maintainer of base-files but AFAICT the
> base-files maintainer has not expressed an opinion about severity.
--
Ian JacksonThese opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Bug#923091: That merged-usr is mandatory is RC
Control: severity -1 serious In #923091, Guillem (with dpkg maintainer hat on) asks for a base-installer option to allow installing buster without merged-usr. Guillem filed the bug as `wishlist' but given the controversy it seems to me that it should be RC if for no other reasons than social cohesion. CCing the TC FYI (they have already been involved in merged-usr debates via #914897) and the release team, in case they have an opinion. FAOD I am not a maintainer of base-files but AFAICT the base-files maintainer has not expressed an opinion about severity. Ian. -- Ian JacksonThese opinions are my own. If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
