Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) (was: Re: DEP 17: Improve support for directory aliasing in dpkg)
On Sun, 21 May 2023 at 15:51, Ansgar wrote: > > On Sun, 2023-05-21 at 16:25 +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote: > > On a process level, I think I miss attempts to resolve this with the > > dpkg maintainer in a constructive way. > > The patch was already suggested to the dpkg maintainer and rejected. > > > Does anyone mind just closing the bug? > > Yes, I do. > > Please pass a resolution that you don't want to override the dpkg > maintainer and that telling derivative users to configure their system > in a way that will cause breakage is okay to do for packages in Debian. I do as well. Recently a very strong consensus emerged that even accidentally causing damage and/or incompatibility to downstreams/external use cases is strongly frowned upon, to say the least. Talking the talk is easy, now we have to walk the walk. Both the warning and the 'unmess' tool cause significant damage and break cross-compatibility, so they both need to be removed. A "mind the moratorium" message would be of course very sensible to have. Kind regards, Luca Boccassi
Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) (was: Re: DEP 17: Improve support for directory aliasing in dpkg)
On Sun, 2023-05-21 at 16:25 +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote: > On a process level, I think I miss attempts to resolve this with the > dpkg maintainer in a constructive way. The patch was already suggested to the dpkg maintainer and rejected. > Does anyone mind just closing the bug? Yes, I do. Please pass a resolution that you don't want to override the dpkg maintainer and that telling derivative users to configure their system in a way that will cause breakage is okay to do for packages in Debian. Ansgar
Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) (was: Re: DEP 17: Improve support for directory aliasing in dpkg)
Hi Ansgar, I'm speaking with a CTTE hat here, but not representing CTTE consensus. On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 11:47:42PM +0200, Ansgar wrote: > Dear ctte, please consider overruling the dpkg maintainer to include > the patch from #994388[1]. I think we need to reject this request on multiple levels. On a social level, I see that you are frustrated with how dpkg is being maintained and how communication does not work out in practice. While part of that can be attributed to the dpkg maintainer, this goes both ways and the way you refer this matter to the CTTE without even attempting to resolve it by other means just serves to deepen that dispute. I see that the dpkg maintainer has recently contributed constructively to the discussion about how dpkg can be part of a solution for the problems resulting from the /usr merge. I have a hard time saying the same about your interaction here. Therefore, I think your request should be rejected as not being serious. On a process level, I think I miss attempts to resolve this with the dpkg maintainer in a constructive way. The present discussion clearly shows that dpkg's support for how Debian deals with merged /usr is lacking. We are dealing with multiple file-loss scenarios (something we otherwise consider grave) and issuing a warning about such behaviour seems fine to me. On the other hand, much of the project seems to agree that the way this warning is worded is far from optimal and evidently leads to confused users. And while it may seem that any attempt at resolving may lead nowhere, the same can be said about our dpkg maintainer's concerns about our /usr-merge strategy and him pointing out real problems affecting Debian installations in practice. Given the recent constructive communication, I think it is far from clear that this option is exhausted. In particular, acknowledging the problems presented and proposing strategies for dealing with them could go a long way towards a cooperative solution. At present, I see the options to keep and to delete the warning on the table, but there clearly is unexplored middle ground. As such, I think your request should be rejected as not having exhausted the solution space. On a technical level, Debian's support for merged /usr is currently founded on the moratorium preventing breakage. Please observe that this moratorium applies to Debian and Debian only. We have implemented processes to validate this. If a derivative wants to use merged /usr (which probably every derivative should), it certainly needs to prevent breakage in some way - presumably using a similar process. I think that the cost of patching dpkg is minor compared to the cost of a process that prevents breakage arising from our merged /usr strategy. Given this, a warning-by-default (worded in a better way) for derivatives actually can be a good thing, because it makes derivatives aware that they cannot just ignore merged /usr, but have to act. As such, I think your request should be rejected since the measure is technically reasonable in principle. Does anyone mind just closing the bug? At the same time, I recommend changing the warning. The amount of feedback we get regarding the warning should make it clear that the current wording is still seen as offensive and causes confusion. Keeping the warning in its current form also serves little but deepening the dispute. For instance, the wording "going behind dpkg's back" may be considered technically correct, but it also can be objectively described as passive aggressive. Just deleting this aspect and instead saying "This system uses merged-usr-via-aliased-dirs which violates core assumptions of dpkg." would probably keep the intended message in a less confrontational way. Elaborating that file loss is being mitigated by a process (moratorium) on Debian would also help. Looking into the wiki, a recommendation of dpkg-fsys-usrunmess should caution that using it now breaks other tool's assumptions such as systemd and is generally not being tested with QA anymore. Even if one were thinking that the warning were appropriate as is, adapting it again due to community feedback would demonstrate empathy and be a step towards a cooperative solution. I think our priority should be finding a way to terminate the moratorium. Helmut
Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) (was: Re: DEP 17: Improve support for directory aliasing in dpkg)
Hi, On Thu, 2023-05-11 at 00:32 +0200, Ansgar wrote: > On Wed, 2023-05-10 at 23:47 +0200, Ansgar wrote: > > Cool, then let's ask tech-ctte. > > > > Dear ctte, please consider overruling the dpkg maintainer to > > include > > the patch from #994388[1]. > > > > Thanks, > > Ansgar > > > > [1]: https://bugs.debian.org/994388#397 > > For derivatives based on Debian stable it might be worth having this > included in the next stable release; this would need a fairly quick > decision on this issue. The full freeze is approaching and there has been no progress on this issue. Does the ctte think a decision before the release is still possible? As asked earlier I'm also interested in whether the ctte thinks there is enough consensus about how this issue should be solved or do we need a longer discussion to explore the solution space? I admit not having read all mails in the thread as it went fairly off topic IMHO. Ansgar
Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) (was: Re: DEP 17: Improve support for directory aliasing in dpkg)
On Wed, 2023-05-10 at 23:47 +0200, Ansgar wrote: > Cool, then let's ask tech-ctte. > > Dear ctte, please consider overruling the dpkg maintainer to include > the patch from #994388[1]. > > Thanks, > Ansgar > > [1]: https://bugs.debian.org/994388#397 For derivatives based on Debian stable it might be worth having this included in the next stable release; this would need a fairly quick decision on this issue. Ansgar
Bug#1035904: dpkg currently warning about merged-usr systems (revisited) (was: Re: DEP 17: Improve support for directory aliasing in dpkg)
Package: tech-ctte X-Debbugs-Cc: Russ Allbery , Sean Whitton , Helmut Grohne , Luca Boccassi , debian-d...@lists.debian.org, debian-de...@lists.debian.org On Wed, 2023-05-10 at 14:36 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Ansgar writes: > > Debian going out of its way to tell derivative users to switch back from > > merged-/usr to split-/usr is the *opposite* of trying to make things as > > smooth for them as possible. > > Yes, I agree with that part and I think I objected to that at the time. > Nonetheless, one bad decision doesn't mean that it is Debian policy that > we don't care about derivatives or their users. I think we made a mistake > there which is not in alignment with our ideals or our goals. We should > try to reverse that mistake, not double down on it. Cool, then let's ask tech-ctte. Dear ctte, please consider overruling the dpkg maintainer to include the patch from #994388[1]. Thanks, Ansgar [1]: https://bugs.debian.org/994388#397
