Steve McIntyre writes:
> There is a deeper worry about builds that may be done against the
> "weak" background. Although buildd chroots are easily fixed up,
> there's going to be a (small, but unknown) set of maintainers who
> might be uploading binaries from merged systems. I think we're making
>
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
Hi Didier,
While I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the overall point(s) here,
some of the points in this list of arguments seem dubious at
best. Maybe you could expand?
>* having separate `/` and `/usr` filesystems has been useful in the past for
> booting without initramfs onto a minimal
Hi,
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud (2019-02-18):
> Dear Technical Committee members,
> (CC'ed to submitter, and debootstrap maintainers for information and feedack)
>
> Here's the current state of the draft resolution; which `master` is at
>
Dear technical committee,
it would be nice if #919951 would be dealt with in time to allow
affected packages to migrate to testing before the freeze.
FWIW it looks like whitedune was now binNMUed, but dune is still blocked
by #919953.
Ansgar writes:
> I am tempted to suggest that this issue is
Dear Technical Committee members,
(CC'ed to submitter, and debootstrap maintainers for information and feedack)
Here's the current state of the draft resolution; which `master` is at
https://salsa.debian.org/debian/tech-ctte/blob/master/914897_merged_usr/ballot.md
I will submit it to vote on
6 matches
Mail list logo
