On Thu, 2021-07-22 at 14:04 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jul 22, "Barak A. Pearlmutter" wrote:
>
> > People seem pretty worked up over this, but honestly I'm not
> > understanding why.
> Because they are scared by new things, hence they oppose merged-/usr
> (and systemd before that, and udev
On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 03:10:42PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Hi Guillem
>
> Am 19.07.21 um 03:36 schrieb Guillem Jover:
> > What I've also said multiple times, is that
> > merged-usr-via-moves-and-symlink-farms could have been implemented in
> > a fully automated way, by debhelper, w/o
[ Barak, I appreciate your mail, but *sigh*, it's still frustrating,
as pretty much many of the mails related to this, as they keep
ignoring what has been said, and I feel like talking to a wall. :/ ]
On Thu, 2021-07-22 at 11:48:34 +0100, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
> Seriously? Being able to
On Jul 22, "Barak A. Pearlmutter" wrote:
> People seem pretty worked up over this, but honestly I'm not
> understanding why.
Because they are scared by new things, hence they oppose merged-/usr
(and systemd before that, and udev even before...).
But since they cannot admit that, then they need
Seriously? Being able to type
dpkg -S $(which cat)
instead of
dpkg -S $(which cat|sed 's:^/usr::')
is the big user-level pain point?
People seem pretty worked up over this, but honestly I'm not
understanding why. We already have $PATH which (let's be honest) is an
ancient crappy workaround
Andreas Metzler dixit:
>1. Make merged-/usr-via-aliased-dirs the only supported layout and make
>this information available to apt. (Like we did for multi-arch-support.)
>2. After that individual packages can safely move files from / to /usr,
>pre-depending on merged-usr-support.
This will still
On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 23:15:33 +0200, Svante Signell
wrote:
>It is really stunning that the Debian project, including the TC
>overrides the dpkg developer and maintainer Guillem, and still using
>dpkg for package management. Maybe Debian should switch to some other
>software, like rpm-based used by
Hi,
On 2021-07-20 10:07 p.m., Brian Thompson wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-07-20 at 21:13 -0400, Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside
> wrote:
>> Ended up with a 3 month useless discussion regarding if this would
>> give
>> a bad impression, that we need to use node for doing development.
>> Later on I was
On Tue, 2021-07-20 at 21:13 -0400, Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside
wrote:
> Ended up with a 3 month useless discussion regarding if this would
> give
> a bad impression, that we need to use node for doing development.
> Later on I was working on a plugin that treated huge amount of data.
> So
> I
Hi,
> Hi Holger, I would have expected a reply like this from you. I do still
> use Debian, some of my boxes are still Debian-based. Soon they will
> probably be converted to Devuan though. I do still contribute to
> Debian, mainly to Debian GNU/Hurd and Debian GNU/kFreeBSD. As long as
> these
Hi,
On 2021-07-20 5:51 p.m., Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 11:15:33PM +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> [...]
>> Debian, the Universal Operating System was used some years ago!
>
> Svante, fine. You are unhappy with Debian since years, you're not using it
> anymore, you are not
Hi,
> It is really stunning that the Debian project, including the TC
> overrides the dpkg developer and maintainer Guillem, and still using
> dpkg for package management. Maybe Debian should switch to some other
> software, like rpm-based used by Fedora or even guix used by GNU?? Or
> perhaps
On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 12:09:52AM +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> Hi Holger, I would have expected a reply like this from you. I do still
> use Debian, some of my boxes are still Debian-based. Soon they will
> probably be converted to Devuan though. I do still contribute to
> Debian, mainly to
On Tue, 2021-07-20 at 21:51 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 11:15:33PM +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> [...]
> > Debian, the Universal Operating System was used some years ago!
>
> Svante, fine. You are unhappy with Debian since years, you're not
> using it anymore, you are
On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 11:15:33PM +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
[...]
> Debian, the Universal Operating System was used some years ago!
Svante, fine. You are unhappy with Debian since years, you're not using it
anymore, you are not contributing, this is debian-devel@ not debian-rant@,
so please
On Tue, 2021-07-20 at 15:34 -0400, Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2021-07-20 3:30 p.m., Marc Haber wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 14:47:04 +0200, Svante Signell
> > wrote:
> > > According to the dpkg developer and maintainer Guillem users can
> > > still rescue their systems
Hi,
On 2021-07-20 3:30 p.m., Marc Haber wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 14:47:04 +0200, Svante Signell
> wrote:
>> According to the dpkg developer and maintainer Guillem users can still
>> rescue their systems from merged-/usr-via-aliased-dirs with the aid of
>> dpkg-fsys-usrunmess(8), see
>>
On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 14:47:04 +0200, Svante Signell
wrote:
>According to the dpkg developer and maintainer Guillem users can still
>rescue their systems from merged-/usr-via-aliased-dirs with the aid of
>dpkg-fsys-usrunmess(8), see
On Tue, 2021-07-20 at 13:41 +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>
> Hello,
> Isn't this kind of crying over spilt milk? I also wish we never had
> ended up with the buster/bullseye state where both unmerged and
> merged-/usr-via-aliased-dirs are fully supported. However there is
> now a huge number of
On 2021-07-20 Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-07-19 at 16:41:42 +0200, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues wrote:
>> So what what is actually the roadmap after the bullseye release?
>> What is the way forward? Should I rather file bugs with patches
>> against individual packages to move their
On Tue, 2021-07-20 at 11:31:37 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Unfortunately, when the supporters of the merged-/usr-via-aliased-dirs
> pushed their approach into the distribution, that meant that package
> stopped being able to ship compatibility symlinks under «/», and those
> needed to be
On Mon, 2021-07-19 at 16:41:42 +0200, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues wrote:
> So what what is actually the roadmap after the bullseye release? What is the
> way forward? Should I rather file bugs with patches against individual
> packages
> to move their files from /(sbin|bin|lib)/ to
On Mon, 2021-07-19 at 15:10:42 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 19.07.21 um 03:36 schrieb Guillem Jover:
> > What I've also said multiple times, is that
> > merged-usr-via-moves-and-symlink-farms could have been implemented in
> > a fully automated way, by debhelper, w/o requiring any maintainer
Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues:
> Quoting Michael Biebl (2021-07-19 15:10:42)
>> [...]
>>
>> According to
>> apt-file search -x '^/(lib|bin|sbin)'
>> on my Debian sid/amd64 system, we have 1747 packages shipping 24583
>> files in those directories.
>
> more precisely, on amd64 unstable:
>
>
On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 15:19:32 +0200, Michael Biebl
wrote:
>Am 19.07.21 um 07:23 schrieb Marc Haber:
>> I am NOT looking forward having to manually convert legacy systems to
>> merged /usr and I do sincerely hope that Debian will choose a way to
>> get away without throwing away systems that have
Quoting Michael Biebl (2021-07-19 15:10:42)
> Am 19.07.21 um 03:36 schrieb Guillem Jover:
> > What I've also said multiple times, is that
> > merged-usr-via-moves-and-symlink-farms could have been implemented in
> > a fully automated way, by debhelper, w/o requiring any maintainer scripts,
> > all
Am 19.07.21 um 07:23 schrieb Marc Haber:
I am NOT looking forward having to manually convert legacy systems to
merged /usr and I do sincerely hope that Debian will choose a way to
get away without throwing away systems that have just a small /, still
supporting a dedicated /usr as long as it's
Hi Guillem
Am 19.07.21 um 03:36 schrieb Guillem Jover:
What I've also said multiple times, is that
merged-usr-via-moves-and-symlink-farms could have been implemented in
a fully automated way, by debhelper, w/o requiring any maintainer scripts,
all with full cooperation and managed by dpkg, with
On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 3:37 AM Guillem Jover wrote:
> What I've also said multiple times, is that
> merged-usr-via-moves-and-symlink-farms could have been implemented in
> a fully automated way, by debhelper, w/o requiring any maintainer scripts,
> all with full cooperation and managed by dpkg,
On Jul 19, Marc Haber wrote:
> I am NOT looking forward having to manually convert legacy systems to
> merged /usr and I do sincerely hope that Debian will choose a way to
> get away without throwing away systems that have just a small /, still
> supporting a dedicated /usr as long as it's
As I said, on a separate mail...
Marc Haber dijo [Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 07:12:24AM +0200]:
> In an ideal world, would the package manager not be a service utility
> to SUPPORT policy and adapt to changing environment contitions instead
> being a showstopper for innovation?
>
> Who is the dpkg
Sorry to single you out here, Marc -- This goes to many people. This
goes, in fact, to the discussion itself.
Marc Haber dijo [Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 07:12:24AM +0200]:
> In an ideal world, would the package manager not be a service utility
> to SUPPORT policy and adapt to changing environment
Nowadays you can also have BTRFS subvolumes, which does not require you
to define sizes in advance. In that case it is nice for snapshotting to
have separate subvolumes for things like home directories.
Regards
On Sun, 18 Jul 2021 16:21:24 -0700, Russ Allbery
wrote:
>I agree with the other feedback that you are overpartitioning your disk.
It is especially evident in the df output where there are two-digit
amounts of gigabytes free on most of those HUGE partitions.
>I used to do this back when I was
On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 03:36:59 +0200, Guillem Jover
wrote:
>If by "very minor bugs" you mean that f.ex.:
>
> * dpkg, dpkg-divert, or update-alternatives are unable to detect file
> conflicts and thus might allow silent overwrites of random stuff on
> disk,
> * when moving files across packages
Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside writes:
> I had the belief that some software used /tmp for temporary file that
> may grow many GB (example DVD creation).
> I have 32 GB
It should not, or at least it should let you specify a different path,
because using tmpfs for /tmp is very common these
On Thu, 2021-07-15 at 10:13:47 +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> As it has been said and written many times already, in reality this is
> not broken by design at all and in fact it is the only successful
> strategy that has been deployed by other distros - it's what is being
> called
Hi,
On 2021-07-18 7:21 p.m., Russ Allbery wrote:
> Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside writes:
>
>> Here's my actual config (with 2TB) and yes I have a separate /home
>
>> What is tmpfs and why is it set to 3.2 GB ?
>
> tmpfs is a RAM-backed temporary file system that is automatically used for
>
Hi,
On Sun, Jul 18, 2021 at 05:54:33PM -0400, Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside wrote:
> On 2021-07-18 5:07 p.m., Andy Smith wrote:
> > I recommend understanding the issue before putting forth an opinion.
> >
> Maybe I shall correct what I said as it may be misunderstood.
It's unclear to me why
Russ Allbery writes:
> I see that you have your system configured to store /tmp on your disk.
> This is generally not recommended these days. Storing /tmp in tmpfs is
> much faster for some applications and automatically achieves the desired
> and standard /tmp behavior of clearing it on
Svante Signell writes:
> Again, everybody is just hiding, I wonder from who, the big wolf?? Who
> is hen? Anybody having the courage to reply to this list about this
> issue, not only workarounds/diversions?
I'm not discussing the issue on the list because I think the current
direction in
Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside writes:
> Here's my actual config (with 2TB) and yes I have a separate /home
> What is tmpfs and why is it set to 3.2 GB ?
tmpfs is a RAM-backed temporary file system that is automatically used for
paths like /run and /dev/shm that are supposed to be cleared on
Hi,
On 2021-07-18 6:17 p.m., Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jul 19, Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside wrote:
>
>> So if I get it right...
> Except for /boot/, which may be required for technical reasons, there
> is no need to further partition your file system unless you actually
> have reasons to do
On Sun, 2021-07-18 at 20:58 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-07-14 at 23:40 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > On Wed, 2021-07-14 at 19:54:56 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> > > Sean Whitton dixit:
> > > > * #978636 move to merged-usr-only?
> > > >
> > > > We were asked to decide whether
On Jul 19, Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside wrote:
> So if I get it right...
Except for /boot/, which may be required for technical reasons, there
is no need to further partition your file system unless you actually
have reasons to do it.
> One partiton for /boot
> One partition for /usr
> One
Hello (Hi) !
On 2021-07-18 5:07 p.m., Andy Smith wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I think all of this is quite clearly explained in:
>
> https://salsa.debian.org/md/usrmerge/raw/master/debian/README.Debian
>
> which is linked from:
>
> https://wiki.debian.org/UsrMerge
>
> If you think it's not
Hi,
On 2021-07-18 5:07 p.m., Andy Smith wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sun, Jul 18, 2021 at 04:31:11PM -0400, Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside
> wrote:
>> My personal opinion is that Debian is going into a mostly "we got the
>> best idea in the world but forgot that not everyone implement things the
>>
Hi,
On 2021-07-18 5:31 p.m., Svante Signell wrote:
> Hi, is it OK to forward your mail to debian-devel. I don't think
> mailing to debian-user will have any effect on this issue?
>
Sure ! Honestly it's my mistake to have sent it to debian-user.
I get everything in one mailbox. I need to have
On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 01:15:37PM +0200, Magissia wrote:
> In this case, this page should be updated to reflect the fact it is not
> broken.
>
> https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg/MergedUsr
Logic does not quite work that way. Just because we selected that way of
doing things doesn't imply it
On Wed, 2021-07-14 at 23:40 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-07-14 at 19:54:56 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> > Sean Whitton dixit:
> > > * #978636 move to merged-usr-only?
> > >
> > > We were asked to decide whether or not Debian 'bookworm' should
> > > continue to support systems
On Sun, Jul 18, 2021 at 10:11:22PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> While, AFAIK, it's indeed only Debian Policy stopping you from not
> shipping /usr/share/doc/*/copyright, and that and common sense stopping
> you from not shipping /usr/share/doc/*/changelog, that's just yet another
> case of
On Sun, Jul 18, 2021 at 04:50:49PM +, Stephan Verbücheln wrote:
> Thank you for the explanation. I think it covers most use cases.
> However, it does not cover packages that do not actually install
> programs but only perform changes to /etc or install something to /opt,
> is that correct?
Thank you for the explanation. I think it covers most use cases.
However, it does not cover packages that do not actually install
programs but only perform changes to /etc or install something to /opt,
is that correct?
Regards
On Jul 18, Stephan Verbücheln wrote:
> On Sun, 2021-07-18 at 11:13 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > I link /var/lib/dpkg/ to somewhere in /usr/, and I think that this is
> >
> What? No matter whether we merge “/bin” or not, “/usr” should stay
> read-only.
The dpkg database IS read-only as long as
On Sun, Jul 18, 2021 at 11:09:49AM +, Stephan Verbücheln wrote:
> On Sun, 2021-07-18 at 11:13 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > I link /var/lib/dpkg/ to somewhere in /usr/, and I think that this is
> >
>
> What? No matter whether we merge “/bin” or not, “/usr” should stay
> read-only.
On Debian
On Sun, 2021-07-18 at 11:13 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> I link /var/lib/dpkg/ to somewhere in /usr/, and I think that this is
>
What? No matter whether we merge “/bin” or not, “/usr” should stay
read-only.
Regards
On Sun, Jul 18, 2021 at 11:13:37AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jul 18, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > If a machine's /usr is not in sync with its /etc and /var, then it is likely
> > to work incorrectly: at a minimum, asking dpkg which packages and versions
> But in my experience (with shared-/usr
On Jul 18, Simon McVittie wrote:
> If a machine's /usr is not in sync with its /etc and /var, then it is likely
> to work incorrectly: at a minimum, asking dpkg which packages and versions
But in my experience (with shared-/usr containers) this works great as
long as everything is aligned to
Summary: let go, let go
On Sat, Jul 17, 2021 at 09:13:57PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>
> And no, I’m not going to embrace every unnecessary change thrown my way.
None of us does embraces every unnecessary change.
We all choose our battles wisely.
> No; usrmerge is broken from the PoV of
On Sat, 17 Jul 2021 at 20:34:41 +, Johannes Drexl wrote:
> /usr is allowed to be not only on a separate partition, but even on a
> network device
This has been discussed at considerable length before, but I'll try to
recap:
A separate or network-mounted /usr is possible in Debian, whether
Johannes Drexl dixit:
>embrace getting rid of /sbin and /bin. FHS 3.0 explicitely states that
>/usr is allowed to be not only on a separate partition, but even on a
>network device shared by other machines:
This hasn’t been true on Debian for a while (partially due to the
systemd/usrmerge
Am Freitag, dem 16.07.2021 um 10:09 +0200 schrieb Thomas Goirand:
> Merging binaries in /usr and getting rid of /bin and /sbin, at the
> end,
> WILL be an improvement. Debian cannot be the last distro not doing
> the
> move, I hope you understand that.
>
> Also, I'm having a hard time
In this case, this page should be updated to reflect the fact it is not
broken.
https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg/MergedUsr
Nol'
Le jeudi 15 juillet 2021 à 10:13 +0100, Luca Boccassi a écrit :
> On Wed, 2021-07-14 at 23:40 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > On Wed, 2021-07-14 at 19:54:56 +,
On 7/16/21 10:09 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 7/14/21 9:54 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>> Sean Whitton dixit:
>>
>>> * #978636 move to merged-usr-only?
>>>
>>> We were asked to decide whether or not Debian 'bookworm' should
>>> continue to support systems which are not using the merged-usr
>>>
Thorsten Glaser writes:
>>But in any case, given that merged-usr-via-aliased-dirs is not really
>>supported by dpkg anyway, it is broken by design [B], I have no
>
> Time for another GR? Leaving Debian behind?
Threats of leaving are not fine and are just making any discussion
pointless.
I
On 2021-07-16 at 03:18, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 01:44:54 + (UTC), Thorsten Glaser
> wrote:
>
>>Marc Haber dixit:
>>
>>>think we can afford an additional time sink at the moment. Please, get
>>
>>While that’s true…
>
> You conveniently snipped the "I don't" which turns your
On 7/14/21 9:54 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Sean Whitton dixit:
>
>> * #978636 move to merged-usr-only?
>>
>> We were asked to decide whether or not Debian 'bookworm' should
>> continue to support systems which are not using the merged-usr
>> filesystem layout. We decided that support should
On 7/15/21 5:08 AM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Guillem Jover dixit:
>
>> I've been meaning to send a note about this for some time now, but
>> as I feel it keeps getting ignored, it always seems a bit pointless.
>
> Yeah, I saw this popping up multiple times in that bugreport ☹
>
>> But in any
On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 01:44:54 + (UTC), Thorsten Glaser
wrote:
>Marc Haber dixit:
>>think we can afford an additional time sink at the moment. Please, get
>
>While that’s true…
You conveniently snipped the "I don't" which turns your quote into the
opposite that I wanted to say.
Greetings
Marc
Marc Haber dixit:
>think we can afford an additional time sink at the moment. Please, get
While that’s true…
>Can we please delay this discussion until after the release? I don't
… we can’t afford to: the TC discussion becomes valid as soon as
bullseye is released, which is in two weeks, and
Hello,
On Thu 15 Jul 2021 at 09:56AM +02, Jonathan Carter wrote:
> Hi Sean
>
> On 2021/07/15 09:04, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> Just to confirm, when you say "merged-usr-via-aliased-dirs", you mean
>> what I would get if I typed 'debootstrap bullseye /foo', right?
>>
>> I would like to note that the
On 2021/07/15 10:47, Marc Haber wrote:
> Can we please delay this discussion until after the release?
To be clear, I was requesting further details from the TC, not a
re-evaluation or further discussion.
-Jonathan
On Wed, 2021-07-14 at 23:40 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-07-14 at 19:54:56 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> > Sean Whitton dixit:
> > > * #978636 move to merged-usr-only?
> > >
> > > We were asked to decide whether or not Debian 'bookworm' should
> > > continue to support systems
On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 09:56:18 +0200, Jonathan Carter
wrote:
>On 2021/07/15 09:04, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> Just to confirm, when you say "merged-usr-via-aliased-dirs", you mean
>> what I would get if I typed 'debootstrap bullseye /foo', right?
>>
>> I would like to note that the TC decision did not
Hi Sean
On 2021/07/15 09:04, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Just to confirm, when you say "merged-usr-via-aliased-dirs", you mean
> what I would get if I typed 'debootstrap bullseye /foo', right?
>
> I would like to note that the TC decision did not specify any particular
> implementation of merged-/usr.
Hello Guillem,
On Wed 14 Jul 2021 at 11:40PM +02, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-07-14 at 19:54:56 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>> Sean Whitton dixit:
>> >* #978636 move to merged-usr-only?
>> >
>> > We were asked to decide whether or not Debian 'bookworm' should
>> > continue to support
Guillem Jover dixit:
>I've been meaning to send a note about this for some time now, but
>as I feel it keeps getting ignored, it always seems a bit pointless.
Yeah, I saw this popping up multiple times in that bugreport ☹
>But in any case, given that merged-usr-via-aliased-dirs is not really
On Wed, 2021-07-14 at 19:54:56 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Sean Whitton dixit:
> >* #978636 move to merged-usr-only?
> >
> > We were asked to decide whether or not Debian 'bookworm' should
> > continue to support systems which are not using the merged-usr
> > filesystem layout. We decided
Sean Whitton dixit:
>* #978636 move to merged-usr-only?
>
> We were asked to decide whether or not Debian 'bookworm' should
> continue to support systems which are not using the merged-usr
> filesystem layout. We decided that support should not continue beyond
> Debian 'bullseye'.
What?
79 matches
Mail list logo
