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
On Jan 25, Simon McVittie wrote:
> 2. an arrangement where all regular files that have traditionally been
>in /bin, /sbin, /lib and /lib64 are physically located in /usr,
>with /bin etc. becoming "symlink farms" containing symlinks like
>/bin/sh -> /usr/bin/sh, /lib/ld-linux.so.2 ->
On Dec 29, Ansgar wrote:
> 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
On Feb 18, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> * another use-case is to be able to share an identical `/usr` over a network
> link; hence booting an initramfs, mounting a local `/`, then mounting `/usr`
> over the network. It seems that an initramfs with everything needed to mount
> a filesystem
On Dec 23, Simon McVittie wrote:
> An alternative to the usrmerge package might be to do this transition
> in an initramfs hook or something similar, which would guarantee that
> nothing else is concurrently altering /usr or the directories that are
> meant to be merged into it.
FWIW I tried
On Dec 03, Adam Borowski wrote:
> unusrmerge would still be still far less work than continuing with 2. Yet I
No "unmerge" program is possible since some symlinks are created by
maintainer scripts and hence cannot be recreated except by running again
the maintainer scripts in the right
On Dec 02, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> One thing that has not been answered yet in this discussion (and if the
> TC is to make a decision about it, I think it should be) is "why are we
> doing this". That is, what is the problem that usrmerge is meant to
> solve, and how does it attempt to solve
On Nov 29, Adam Borowski wrote:
> Thus: sorry but there is no way we can possibly support usrmerged and
> non-usrmerged systems at the same time. Usrmerge is not viable without a
> flag day.
We have being doing exactly this opt-in (the usrmerge package) for over
three years and opt-out (the
On Jun 15, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote:
I'm not at a stage where I want to involve the CTTE right now. I still
would prefer to gather opinions and see where it goes.
My opinion is that you have not proved either that lz is widely used or
that it is better than xz.
--
ciao,
Marco
On Nov 28, Svante Signell svante.sign...@gmail.com wrote:
a) Upgrades should _not_ change init: whatever is installed should be
kept.
I disagree: upgrades should get the default init system unless the
system administrator chooses otherwise.
b) New installs should get systemd-sysv as default
On Jan 25, Svante Signell svante.sign...@gmail.com wrote:
Whatever you have decided about Linux only, this is relevant
information. Debian is about versatility in the Unix/Posix way, not any
No, it's not. Next.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Oct 08, Don Armstrong d...@donarmstrong.com wrote:
Marco: would it be acceptable to apply this patch (or one of your
design with similar effect), or do you want the CTTE to continue its
laborious process?
I believe I already stated my position on this, and I see no new facts
from the
On Jul 04, Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
Marco: regardless of whether you consider this a bug, would you
accept in principle a contribution (a patch) to change systems which
had the previous default ?
No, I would not. My point is that changing again the setting for these
On Jul 04, Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote:
I do not consider this RC since it doesn???t affect upgrades from lenny
nor new installations, but the broken version remained for a long period
of time in testing.
Since there is nothing broken in bindv6only=1, I do not consider
appropriate
On Jun 22, Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org wrote:
Maybe Marco, Cc:-ed, can clarify whether he still wants the tech-ctte to
take a decision in place of him or not?
Indeed my plan is to revert the change in a few days.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
15 matches
Mail list logo
