Le lundi, 4 mars 2019, 22.28:38 h CET Margarita Manterola a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> > - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> >
> > The winners are:
> > Option M `middle`
> > Option H `hard`
> >
> > -
Hi,
> - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
> The winners are:
>Option M `middle`
>Option H `hard`
>
> - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
> Dear Marga, as Chair, could you please make use of your
Le lundi, 25 février 2019, 14.58:09 h CET Didier 'OdyX' Raboud a écrit :
> I call for vote immediately on the following resolution.
>
> === Resolution ===
>
> The Technical Committee resolves to decline to override the debootstrap
> maintainers.
>
> Furthermore, using its §6.1.5 "Offering
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes:
> Dear Technical Committee members,
>
> I call for vote immediately on the following resolution.
>
> === Resolution ===
>
> The Technical Committee resolves to decline to override the debootstrap
> maintainers.
>
> Furthermore, using its §6.1.5 "Offering advice"
> === Resolution ===
>
> The Technical Committee resolves to decline to override the debootstrap
> maintainers.
>
> Furthermore, using its §6.1.5 "Offering advice" power, the Technical
> Committee considers that the desirable solution at the time of `bullseye` is:
>
> * W: `weak`: both
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 02:58:09PM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> === Resolution ===
>
> The Technical Committee resolves to decline to override the debootstrap
> maintainers.
>
> Furthermore, using its §6.1.5 "Offering advice" power, the Technical
> Committee considers that the desirable
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud dijo [Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 02:58:09PM +0100]:
> === Resolution ===
>
> The Technical Committee resolves to decline to override the debootstrap
> maintainers.
>
> Furthermore, using its §6.1.5 "Offering advice" power, the Technical
> Committee considers that the desirable
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes:
> === Resolution ===
>
> The Technical Committee resolves to decline to override the debootstrap
> maintainers.
>
> Furthermore, using its §6.1.5 "Offering advice" power, the Technical
> Committee considers that the desirable solution at the time of `bullseye` is:
>
Le lundi, 25 février 2019, 14.58:09 h CET Didier 'OdyX' Raboud a écrit :
> === Resolution ===
>
> The Technical Committee resolves to decline to override the debootstrap
> maintainers.
>
> Furthermore, using its §6.1.5 "Offering advice" power, the Technical
> Committee considers that the
Dear Technical Committee members,
I call for vote immediately on the following resolution.
=== Resolution ===
The Technical Committee resolves to decline to override the debootstrap
maintainers.
Furthermore, using its §6.1.5 "Offering advice" power, the Technical
Committee considers that the
(Corrected the recipients, these mails should go to the bug).
Le lundi, 25 février 2019, 14.23:31 h CET Didier 'OdyX' Raboud a écrit :
> Le samedi, 23 février 2019, 12.12:13 h CET Niko Tyni a écrit :
> > > * B: The desireable solution at the time of bullseye is `hard`; both
> > > directory
Le samedi, 23 février 2019, 12.12:13 h CET Niko Tyni a écrit :
> > * B: The desireable solution at the time of bullseye is `hard`; both
> > directory schemes should be allowed, and packages can be built on hosts
> > with either classical or "merged-`/usr`" directory schemes.
>
> Isn't this the
Le jeudi, 21 février 2019, 15.28:23 h CET Ian Jackson a écrit :
> Back in the wider world, of course many people build packages on
> Debian systems for installation `somewhere else'. I have done it
> myself and probably many of the people reading this message have too.
>
> What is implicitly
Le mardi, 19 février 2019, 01.59:18 h CET Steve McIntyre a écrit :
> 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?
Sure. Sorry for publishing a new ballot before answering.
> >*
On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 14:16:03 +0100 Johannes Schauer wrote:
> I found that some important arguments are still missing. A recent mail by
> Guillem [1] nicely summarizes also many of my own thoughts. I'm going to paste
> the relevant content into this mail for convenience of the reader:
I think
Johannes Schauer writes:
> With how merged-/usr is getting deployed via debootstrap, we are placing more
> of the instructions of how a Debian system is supposed to be setup *outside*
> of
> the packages themselves (and into debootstrap). It would make a cleaner design
> if we could have all
Hi,
On Sat, 02 Feb 2019 15:38:01 +0100 Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Gunnar and myself have started working on a draft, the latest version of
> which is available at
>
>
> https://salsa.debian.org/debian/tech-ctte/blob/master/914897_merged_usr/ballot.md
I found that some important
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 11:20:24AM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Thank you for the various comments. I have amended the ballot (which is more a
> "explanation text + short ballot" incorporating the suggestions from the IRC
> meeting as well as taking into accounts remarks on this bug.
Le lundi, 18 février 2019, 08.58:53 h CET Didier 'OdyX' Raboud a écrit :
> 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
>
Steve McIntyre writes ("Bug#914897: tech-ctte: Should debootstrap disable
merged /usr by default?"):
> 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
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 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
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud dijo [Sat, Feb 02, 2019 at 03:38:01PM +0100]:
> Le samedi, 2 février 2019, 14.48:22 h CET Ian Jackson a écrit :
> > Ping ?
>
> Thank for the ping.
>
> Gunnar and myself have started working on a draft, the latest version of
> which
> is available at
>
>
Ian Jackson writes:
> This is especially the case since none of the other possible
> candidates for how to set this distribution-wide policy are useable:
> the Policy editors have decided that Policy should lag implementation
> rather than lead it; debian-devel didn't work; and there is no other
>
David Bremner writes ("Re: Bug#914897: tech-ctte: Should debootstrap disable
merged /usr by default?"):
> There is a draft ballot being prepared for a vote. I'm not sure when
> that will be ready. The minutes of the last TC meeting should have more
> precise information than
Le samedi, 2 février 2019, 14.48:22 h CET Ian Jackson a écrit :
> Ping ?
Thank for the ping.
Gunnar and myself have started working on a draft, the latest version of which
is available at
https://salsa.debian.org/debian/tech-ctte/blob/master/914897_merged_usr/
ballot.md
It's really
Ian Jackson writes:
> Ping ?
>
> Is the TC engaged in this issue or should I seek another approach ?
>
> Ian.
There is a draft ballot being prepared for a vote. I'm not sure when
that will be ready. The minutes of the last TC meeting should have more
precise information than my memory.
d
Ping ?
Is the TC engaged in this issue or should I seek another approach ?
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.
Hi,
Simon McVittie (2018-12-23):
> To be completely clear about the decision that Ian asked the technical
> committee to overrule:
>
> In all debootstrap versions since 1.0.102, merged /usr is the default
> (for all variants except --variant=buildd). This means that new
> installations of
Hi,
On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 00:36:52 +
Simon McVittie wrote:
> To be completely clear about the decision that Ian asked the technical
> committee to overrule:
>
> In all debootstrap versions since 1.0.102, merged /usr is the default (for
> all variants except --variant=buildd). This means that
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
To be completely clear about the decision that Ian asked the technical
committee to overrule:
In all debootstrap versions since 1.0.102, merged /usr is the default (for
all variants except --variant=buildd). This means that new installations
of Debian buster using debian-installer will have
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 at 14:03:19 +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> How about this case:
>
> - Make as default non merged-/usr for all buildds.
This has been done: I sent patches, which have been applied.
(This is actually implemented in two different places, either of which
would have been
Hi,
On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 08:39:27 +
Simon McVittie wrote:
> It might also be considered appropriate to revert the change in
> debootstrap 1.0.111 if data from reproducible-builds demonstrates that
> bugs similar to #913226 have all been fixed or are very rare, but this
> should be done
Processing control commands:
> retitle 914897 tech-ctte: Should debootstrap disable merged /usr by default?
Bug #914897 [tech-ctte] debootstrap, buster: Please disabled merged /usr by
default
Changed Bug title to 'tech-ctte: Should debootstrap disable merged /usr by
default?' from 'debootst
Control: retitle 914897 tech-ctte: Should debootstrap disable merged /usr by
default?
I'm retitling the bug to avoid misrepresenting the technical committee's
position on this. We have been asked to overrule the debootstrap
maintainer, but we have not yet come to a conclusion on whether we
39 matches
Mail list logo
