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

2021-01-26 Thread Ansgar
On Tue, 2021-01-26 at 13:17 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > We can (and should, IMO) declare *today* that for bookworm, shipping > files in / (as opposed to /usr) that are not compatibility symlinks > will be RC. I fear we are drifting away from just deciding to move to merged-/usr to

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

2021-01-26 Thread Simon McVittie
On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 at 12:17:37 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > Wouter Verhelst dijo [Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 01:17:38PM +0200]: > > We can (and should, IMO) declare *today* that for bookworm, shipping > > files in / (as opposed to /usr) that are not compatibility symlinks will > > be RC. > > I agree

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

2021-01-26 Thread Felix Lechner
Hi, On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 3:45 AM Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > You can start writing a lintian check today Here is a Lintian check that follows Ansgar's specification in the second d-d thead. Of course, it will not be merged until the project works out a suitable consensus on this controversial

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

2021-01-26 Thread Gunnar Wolf
Wouter Verhelst dijo [Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 01:17:38PM +0200]: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 12:28:45AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > Also, as is has been discussed, if the /usr/doc/ transition was > > representative then this would probably take many years. > > You keep using that as an argument. I

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

2021-01-26 Thread Ansgar
Hi, Simon McVittie writes: > Should we be more specific than this in what we vote on, to avoid > later having to adjudicate between developers who say that a particular > implementation is or isn't merged-usr? > > Some developers seem to be using "merged /usr" to refer to multiple > concrete

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

2021-01-26 Thread Luca Boccassi
On Tue, 2021-01-26 at 13:17 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 12:28:45AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > Also, as is has been discussed, if the /usr/doc/ transition was > > representative then this would probably take many years. > > You keep using that as an argument. I

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

2021-01-26 Thread Wouter Verhelst
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 12:28:45AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > Also, as is has been discussed, if the /usr/doc/ transition was > representative then this would probably take many years. You keep using that as an argument. I think it's very disinginuous to point to a problem Debian had over 20

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

2021-01-26 Thread Philip Hands
Adam Borowski writes: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:45:55AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: >> Dear Technical Committee members, >> >> 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

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

2021-01-26 Thread Simon McVittie
On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 at 11:27:07 +0100, Bastian Blank wrote: > Before unpacking those packages, both /bin and /lib symlinks must > already exist, because it's past the cutoff date of non-aliased support. I would like that to become true, but the cutoff date of non-aliased support has not yet

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

2021-01-26 Thread Bastian Blank
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 09:56:46AM +, Simon McVittie wrote: > Oh, I see. So when you say "both" in 1a, you're referring to the overall > system - like the fact that we have both /bin/bash and /usr/bin/perl. Yes. > I don't see how we can force all packages to only ship files in /usr/* > (your

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

2021-01-26 Thread Simon McVittie
On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 21:22:29 +, Simon McVittie wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 11:46:35 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > > > The Technical Committee resolves that Debian 'bookworm' should support > > > only the merged-usr root filesystem layout, dropping support for the > > > non-merged-usr

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

2021-01-26 Thread Simon McVittie
On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 at 10:30:34 +0100, Bastian Blank wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 09:01:12AM +, Simon McVittie wrote: > > On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 at 08:02:06 +0100, Bastian Blank wrote: > > > Aren't there two sub-solutions? > > > > > > 1a. with packages shipping files both in /bin und

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

2021-01-26 Thread Simon McVittie
On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 14:47:56 -0800, Keith Packard wrote: > I think that and a transition plan are both key to this project. I > recently installed Debian from scratch on my HiFive unmatched board and > it got merged / and /usr. That ship has already sailed: on #914897 in 2019, before Debian

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

2021-01-26 Thread Bastian Blank
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 09:01:12AM +, Simon McVittie wrote: > On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 at 08:02:06 +0100, Bastian Blank wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 09:22:29PM +, Simon McVittie wrote: > > > Some developers seem to be using "merged /usr" to refer to multiple > > > concrete layouts: > > >

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

2021-01-26 Thread Simon McVittie
On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 at 08:02:06 +0100, Bastian Blank wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 09:22:29PM +, Simon McVittie wrote: > > Some developers seem to be using "merged /usr" to refer to multiple > > concrete layouts: > > 1. an arrangement where all regular files that have traditionally been > >