Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.devel > #100738 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Thorsten Glaser <tg@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-07-14 22:10 +0200 |
| Last post | 2021-07-18 19:20 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 246 — 53 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.devel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Thorsten Glaser <tg@debian.org> - 2021-07-14 22:10 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> - 2021-07-14 23:50 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful Thorsten Glaser <tg@debian.org> - 2021-07-15 05:20 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2021-07-16 10:00 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2021-07-16 13:10 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2021-07-15 09:10 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian.org> - 2021-07-15 10:00 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Marc Haber <mh+debian-devel@zugschlus.de> - 2021-07-15 10:50 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian.org> - 2021-07-15 11:40 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful Thorsten Glaser <tg@debian.org> - 2021-07-16 04:00 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful Marc Haber <mh+debian-devel@zugschlus.de> - 2021-07-16 09:20 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2021-07-16 10:40 +0200
endless discussion considered harmful Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> - 2021-07-16 12:40 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2021-07-15 20:10 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> - 2021-07-15 11:20 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Magissia <debianlist@magissia.com> - 2021-07-16 13:50 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Helmut Grohne <helmut@subdivi.de> - 2021-07-18 23:00 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> - 2021-07-19 03:40 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Marc Haber <mh+debian-devel@zugschlus.de> - 2021-07-19 07:20 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> - 2021-07-19 08:40 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> - 2021-07-19 09:00 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Stephan Lachnit <stephanlachnit@debian.org> - 2021-07-19 11:40 +0200
Re: merged /usr Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2021-07-19 13:00 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org> - 2021-07-19 15:30 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues <josch@debian.org> - 2021-07-19 16:50 +0200
Re: merged /usr Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2021-07-19 19:50 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net> - 2021-07-20 08:20 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> - 2021-07-20 11:40 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> - 2021-07-20 12:30 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Andreas Metzler <ametzler@bebt.de> - 2021-07-20 14:00 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 14:50 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside <debian@polynamaude.com> - 2021-07-20 21:40 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 23:20 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2021-07-21 00:00 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 00:10 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2021-07-21 00:30 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside <debian@polynamaude.com> - 2021-07-21 03:20 +0200
Re: not actually anything to do with merged-/usr any more Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2021-07-21 10:30 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside <debian@polynamaude.com> - 2021-07-21 03:20 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside <debian@polynamaude.com> - 2021-07-21 03:20 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Brian Thompson <brian@hashvault.io> - 2021-07-21 04:10 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside <debian@polynamaude.com> - 2021-07-21 04:40 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Marc Haber <mh+debian-devel@zugschlus.de> - 2021-07-21 08:20 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Marc Haber <mh+debian-devel@zugschlus.de> - 2021-07-20 21:40 +0200
a little productivity on the side (was Re: merged /usr considered harmful) Thorsten Glaser <tg@debian.org> - 2021-07-22 04:00 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> - 2021-07-20 11:20 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> - 2021-07-22 16:00 +0200
Re: merged /usr Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2021-07-22 16:30 +0200
Re: merged /usr Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> - 2021-07-27 12:50 +0200
Re: merged /usr Andreas Metzler <ametzler@bebt.de> - 2021-07-27 14:20 +0200
Re: merged /usr Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> - 2021-07-27 15:30 +0200
Re: merged /usr Andrey Rahmatullin <wrar@debian.org> - 2021-07-27 16:00 +0200
Re: merged /usr Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> - 2021-07-27 17:10 +0200
Re: merged /usr Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2021-07-27 17:30 +0200
Re: merged /usr Steve Cotton <steve@octalot.at> - 2021-07-28 02:40 +0200
Re: merged /usr Andreas Metzler <ametzler@bebt.de> - 2021-07-27 17:40 +0200
Re: merged /usr Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> - 2021-07-27 14:30 +0200
Re: merged /usr Simon Richter <sjr@debian.org> - 2021-07-27 16:40 +0200
Re: merged /usr Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> - 2021-07-27 17:10 +0200
Re: merged /usr Calum McConnell <calumlikesapplepie@gmail.com> - 2021-07-27 19:30 +0200
Re: merged /usr Simon Richter <sjr@debian.org> - 2021-07-28 16:40 +0200
Re: merged /usr Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> - 2021-08-13 02:00 +0200
Re: merged /usr Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> - 2021-08-13 08:00 +0200
Re: merged /usr Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> - 2021-08-13 11:00 +0200
Re: merged /usr Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> - 2021-08-13 17:30 +0200
Re: merged /usr Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> - 2021-08-13 11:20 +0200
Re: merged /usr David Kalnischkies <david@kalnischkies.de> - 2021-08-14 14:40 +0200
Re: merged /usr Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> - 2021-08-14 15:10 +0200
Re: merged /usr David Kalnischkies <david@kalnischkies.de> - 2021-08-14 16:00 +0200
Re: merged /usr Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2021-08-14 15:30 +0200
Re: merged /usr David Kalnischkies <david@kalnischkies.de> - 2021-08-14 17:00 +0200
Re: merged /usr Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2021-08-15 01:20 +0200
Re: merged /usr David Kalnischkies <david@kalnischkies.de> - 2021-08-15 12:00 +0200
Re: merged /usr Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2021-08-15 19:00 +0200
Re: merged /usr Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> - 2021-08-16 01:10 +0200
Re: merged /usr David Kalnischkies <david@kalnischkies.de> - 2021-08-16 11:50 +0200
Re: merged /usr Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> - 2021-08-16 14:40 +0200
Re: merged /usr Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> - 2021-08-16 15:20 +0200
Re: merged /usr David Kalnischkies <david@kalnischkies.de> - 2021-08-17 12:10 +0200
Re: merged /usr Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> - 2021-08-17 12:30 +0200
A summary of where I think we are on the technical side of the merged /usr discussion Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2021-08-17 16:10 +0200
Re: A summary of where I think we are on the technical side of the merged /usr discussion Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2021-08-17 18:20 +0200
Re: A summary of where I think we are on the technical side of the merged /usr discussion "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu> - 2021-08-17 19:00 +0200
Re: A summary of where I think we are on the technical side of the merged /usr discussion Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2021-08-17 20:10 +0200
Re: A summary of where I think we are on the technical side of the merged /usr discussion Simon Richter <sjr@debian.org> - 2021-08-17 21:20 +0200
Re: A summary of where I think we are on the technical side of the merged /usr discussion Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> - 2021-08-18 00:30 +0200
Re: A summary of where I think we are on the technical side of the merged /usr discussion Simon Richter <sjr@debian.org> - 2021-08-18 10:50 +0200
Re: A summary of where I think we are on the technical side of the merged /usr discussion Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> - 2021-08-18 11:50 +0200
Re: A summary of where I think we are on the technical side of the merged /usr discussion "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu> - 2021-08-18 05:30 +0200
Re: merged /usr Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2021-08-18 11:20 +0200
Re: merged /usr Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> - 2021-08-18 18:40 +0200
Re: A summary of where I think we are on the technical side of the merged /usr discussion Helmut Grohne <helmut@subdivi.de> - 2021-08-19 10:20 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2021-08-19 12:20 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu> - 2021-08-19 16:50 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Simon Richter <sjr@debian.org> - 2021-08-19 22:50 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu> - 2021-08-20 02:00 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Craig Small <csmall@debian.org> - 2021-08-20 02:40 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> - 2021-08-20 12:30 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> - 2021-08-20 15:10 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> - 2021-08-21 10:30 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> - 2021-08-21 15:50 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> - 2021-08-21 16:30 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> - 2021-08-21 19:50 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org> - 2021-08-21 21:50 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> - 2021-08-22 12:00 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> - 2021-08-21 23:00 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> - 2021-08-22 12:30 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Steve Cotton <steve@octalot.at> - 2021-08-22 13:10 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> - 2021-08-22 23:30 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> - 2021-11-12 05:00 +0100
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> - 2021-11-12 12:00 +0100
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Simon Richter <sjr@debian.org> - 2021-08-22 02:20 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu> - 2021-08-22 05:20 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> - 2021-08-22 12:30 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2021-08-22 16:50 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> - 2021-08-22 23:30 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2021-08-23 04:20 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> - 2021-08-23 15:50 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2021-08-23 17:30 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Simon Richter <sjr@debian.org> - 2021-08-23 22:10 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2021-08-23 22:50 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Ansgar <ansgar@43-1.org> - 2021-08-23 23:20 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2021-08-23 23:30 +0200
Debhelper and /lib/systemd vs /usr/lib/systemd Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2021-08-24 01:30 +0200
Re: Debhelper and /lib/systemd vs /usr/lib/systemd Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2021-08-24 02:00 +0200
Re: Debhelper and /lib/systemd vs /usr/lib/systemd Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net> - 2021-08-25 20:40 +0200
Re: Debhelper and /lib/systemd vs /usr/lib/systemd Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2021-08-25 22:10 +0200
Re: Debhelper and /lib/systemd vs /usr/lib/systemd Simon Richter <sjr@debian.org> - 2021-08-25 23:10 +0200
Re: Debhelper and /lib/systemd vs /usr/lib/systemd Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net> - 2021-08-25 23:30 +0200
Re: Debhelper and /lib/systemd vs /usr/lib/systemd Andreas Metzler <ametzler@bebt.de> - 2021-08-26 19:40 +0200
Re: Debhelper and /lib/systemd vs /usr/lib/systemd Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net> - 2021-08-25 23:20 +0200
Re: Debhelper and /lib/systemd vs /usr/lib/systemd Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2021-08-26 18:00 +0200
Re: Debhelper and /lib/systemd vs /usr/lib/systemd Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net> - 2021-08-26 19:50 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> - 2021-08-25 18:10 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2021-08-25 19:00 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> - 2021-08-25 20:10 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2021-08-25 22:30 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> - 2021-08-25 21:50 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Simon Richter <sjr@debian.org> - 2021-08-25 22:00 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2021-08-25 22:10 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Simon Richter <sjr@debian.org> - 2021-08-22 17:10 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Simon Richter <sjr@debian.org> - 2021-08-22 21:10 +0200
Making the dpkg database correspond with reality (Was Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms) "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu> - 2021-08-24 02:50 +0200
Re: Making the dpkg database correspond with reality (Was Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms) Timo Röhling <roehling@debian.org> - 2021-08-24 08:50 +0200
Re: Making the dpkg database correspond with reality (Was Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms) Simon Richter <sjr@debian.org> - 2021-08-24 12:00 +0200
Re: Making the dpkg database correspond with reality (Was Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms) "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu> - 2021-08-24 16:50 +0200
Re: Making the dpkg database correspond with reality (Was Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms) Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2021-08-24 20:00 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2021-08-23 16:20 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Timo Röhling <roehling@debian.org> - 2021-08-22 12:20 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu> - 2021-08-21 18:50 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms David Kalnischkies <david@kalnischkies.de> - 2021-08-22 12:30 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu> - 2021-08-23 01:10 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms gregor herrmann <gregoa@debian.org> - 2021-08-23 02:50 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2021-08-20 16:00 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu> - 2021-08-20 20:00 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Simon Richter <sjr@debian.org> - 2021-08-20 23:20 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> - 2021-08-21 15:40 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Sam Hartman <hartmans@suchdamage.org> - 2021-08-23 16:40 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net> - 2021-08-25 21:40 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Danilo Santos <santosdanilo2013@gmail.com> - 2021-08-26 08:20 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> - 2021-08-22 00:20 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Andreas Metzler <ametzler@bebt.de> - 2021-08-22 09:20 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> - 2021-08-26 03:00 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> - 2021-08-26 09:10 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Simon Richter <sjr@debian.org> - 2021-08-26 12:20 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> - 2021-08-26 13:20 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> - 2021-08-26 14:00 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> - 2021-08-26 14:20 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Simon Richter <sjr@debian.org> - 2021-08-26 15:00 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Timo Röhling <roehling@debian.org> - 2021-08-26 15:40 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2021-08-26 17:00 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Timo Röhling <roehling@debian.org> - 2021-08-26 17:40 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Andreas Metzler <ametzler@bebt.de> - 2021-08-26 19:30 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> - 2021-08-26 16:00 +0200
next steps after usrunmess Phil Morrell <debian@emorrp1.name> - 2021-08-27 04:50 +0200
Re: next steps after usrunmess "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu> - 2021-08-27 17:30 +0200
Re: next steps after usrunmess Bastien ROUCARIES <roucaries.bastien@gmail.com> - 2021-08-27 20:00 +0200
Re: next steps after usrmerge "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu> - 2021-08-27 20:10 +0200
Re: next steps after usrunmess Phil Morrell <debian@emorrp1.name> - 2021-08-27 20:40 +0200
Re: next steps after usrunmess Bastien ROUCARIES <roucaries.bastien@gmail.com> - 2021-08-27 21:40 +0200
Re: next steps after usrunmess Richard Laager <rlaager@debian.org> - 2021-08-27 21:20 +0200
Re: merged-/usr vs. partially-symlink-farmed-root Ansgar <ansgar@43-1.org> - 2021-08-22 11:10 +0200
Re: merged-/usr vs. partially-symlink-farmed-root Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> - 2021-08-22 12:30 +0200
Re: merged-/usr vs. partially-symlink-farmed-root Marvin Renich <mrvn@renich.org> - 2021-08-22 18:40 +0200
Re: merged-/usr vs. partially-symlink-farmed-root Simon Richter <sjr@debian.org> - 2021-08-22 19:00 +0200
Re: merged-/usr vs. partially-symlink-farmed-root Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> - 2021-08-22 23:30 +0200
Re: merged-/usr vs. partially-symlink-farmed-root "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu> - 2021-08-23 00:20 +0200
Re: merged-/usr vs. partially-symlink-farmed-root Ansgar <ansgar@43-1.org> - 2021-08-22 23:30 +0200
Re: merged-/usr vs. partially-symlink-farmed-root Marvin Renich <mrvn@renich.org> - 2021-08-23 16:40 +0200
Re: merged-/usr vs. partially-symlink-farmed-root Ansgar <ansgar@43-1.org> - 2021-08-23 17:20 +0200
Re: merged-/usr vs. partially-symlink-farmed-root Marvin Renich <mrvn@renich.org> - 2021-08-23 18:30 +0200
Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms Tomas Pospisek <tpo2@sourcepole.ch> - 2021-08-22 21:30 +0200
Re: testing for rootfs vs. /usr reproducibility regressions Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2021-08-19 12:50 +0200
Re: testing for rootfs vs. /usr reproducibility regressions Helmut Grohne <helmut@subdivi.de> - 2021-08-20 10:20 +0200
Re: testing for rootfs vs. /usr reproducibility regressions Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2021-08-20 12:40 +0200
Re: testing for rootfs vs. /usr reproducibility regressions Timothy M Butterworth <timothy.m.butterworth@gmail.com> - 2021-08-20 23:40 +0200
Re: testing for rootfs vs. /usr reproducibility regressions Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2021-08-21 19:30 +0200
Re: testing for rootfs vs. /usr reproducibility regressions Timothy M Butterworth <timothy.m.butterworth@gmail.com> - 2021-08-21 22:20 +0200
Re: A summary of where I think we are on the technical side of the merged /usr discussion Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> - 2021-08-18 00:10 +0200
Re: A summary of where I think we are on the technical side of the merged /usr discussion Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2021-08-18 07:00 +0200
Re: A summary of where I think we are on the technical side of the merged /usr discussion Tim Woodall <debiandevel@woodall.me.uk> - 2021-08-18 18:20 +0200
Changing how you do things: Was Re: merged /usr Tim Woodall <debiandevel@woodall.me.uk> - 2021-08-18 09:50 +0200
Re: Changing how you do things: Was Re: merged /usr David Kalnischkies <david@kalnischkies.de> - 2021-08-18 15:00 +0200
Re: merged /usr David Kalnischkies <david@kalnischkies.de> - 2021-08-16 11:50 +0200
Re: merged /usr Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2021-08-17 11:50 +0200
Re: merged /usr Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@reproducible-builds.org> - 2021-08-17 18:30 +0200
Re: merged /usr Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2021-08-17 19:00 +0200
Re: merged /usr Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2021-08-17 19:20 +0200
Re: merged /usr Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> - 2021-08-16 16:10 +0200
Re: merged /usr Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> - 2021-08-16 16:10 +0200
Re: merged /usr Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> - 2021-08-16 16:20 +0200
Re: merged /usr Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> - 2021-08-16 17:00 +0200
Re: merged /usr Marc Haber <mh+debian-devel@zugschlus.de> - 2021-08-17 19:10 +0200
Re: merged /usr Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2021-08-16 23:50 +0200
Re: merged /usr Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> - 2021-07-27 17:10 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com> - 2021-07-18 21:00 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside <debian@polynamaude.com> - 2021-07-18 23:50 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside <debian@polynamaude.com> - 2021-07-19 00:00 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2021-07-19 01:50 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside <debian@polynamaude.com> - 2021-07-19 00:10 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> - 2021-07-19 00:20 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside <debian@polynamaude.com> - 2021-07-19 00:30 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2021-07-19 01:30 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2021-07-19 01:30 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside <debian@polynamaude.com> - 2021-07-19 03:20 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2021-07-19 04:10 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Marc Haber <mh+debian-devel@zugschlus.de> - 2021-07-19 07:30 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Stephan Verbücheln <verbuecheln@posteo.de> - 2021-07-19 07:50 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> - 2021-07-19 10:30 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org> - 2021-07-19 15:30 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Marc Haber <mh+debian-devel@zugschlus.de> - 2021-07-19 18:40 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com> - 2021-07-19 00:30 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2021-07-19 01:30 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2021-07-16 10:10 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2021-07-16 13:40 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful Thorsten Glaser <tg@debian.org> - 2021-07-17 23:20 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful Geert Stappers <stappers@stappers.nl> - 2021-07-18 08:40 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2021-07-18 00:30 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> - 2021-07-18 11:20 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org> - 2021-07-18 12:30 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Stephan Verbücheln <verbuecheln@posteo.de> - 2021-07-18 13:20 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Andrey Rahmatullin <wrar@debian.org> - 2021-07-18 13:20 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> - 2021-07-18 18:00 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Stephan Verbücheln <verbuecheln@posteo.de> - 2021-07-18 19:00 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Andrey Rahmatullin <wrar@debian.org> - 2021-07-18 19:20 +0200
Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) Andrey Rahmatullin <wrar@debian.org> - 2021-07-18 19:20 +0200
Page 1 of 13 [1] 2 3 … 13 Next page →
| From | Thorsten Glaser <tg@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-14 22:10 +0200 |
| Subject | merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) |
| Message-ID | <CATmF-478-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
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? WHAT? ＷＨＡＴ？ > The decision is captured here: > <https://bugs.debian.org/978636#178> No reason provided either. This stinks. I’m v̲e̲r̲y̲ disappointed. Debian is becoming untenable. Years ago, I had hoped it won’t. bye, //mirabilos -- Yes, I hate users and I want them to suffer. -- Marco d'Itri on gmane.linux.debian.devel.general
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-14 23:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <CAUVr-4Rx-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #100738 |
On Wed, 2021-07-14 at 19:54:56 +0000, 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 not continue beyond > > Debian 'bullseye'. > > What? WHAT? ＷＨＡＴ？ > > > The decision is captured here: > > <https://bugs.debian.org/978636#178> > > No reason provided either. This stinks. I’m v̲e̲r̲y̲ disappointed. > Debian is becoming untenable. Years ago, I had hoped it won’t. 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. 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 intention whatsoever to break any of my systems with such layout going forward, I'm thus planning to spend any necessary volunteer time implementing any fix, workaround or solution required to avoid having to use it, in detriment of other Debian volunteer time. I already started some time ago with dpkg-fsys-usrunmess(8), present already in the upcoming bullseye release. [B] <https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg/FAQ#Q:_Does_dpkg_support_merged-.2Fusr-via-aliased-dirs.3F> Thanks, Guillem
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thorsten Glaser <tg@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-15 05:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: merged /usr considered harmful |
| Message-ID | <CB04N-8dx-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #100739 |
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 >supported by dpkg anyway, it is broken by design [B], I have no Time for another GR? Leaving Debian behind? >intention whatsoever to break any of my systems with such layout going Yeah, this totally caught me by surprise. I guess I’ll have to figure out how to switch *all* my systems from sid to bullseye *fast*, now. This also effectively ends debian-ports work for me… Not amused, //mirabilos -- Yes, I hate users and I want them to suffer. -- Marco d'Itri on gmane.linux.debian.devel.general
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-16 10:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: merged /usr considered harmful |
| Message-ID | <CBqVj-8te-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #100743 |
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 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? Please don't! This isn't funny... Thomas
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-16 13:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: merged /usr considered harmful |
| Message-ID | <CBtTc-2aK-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #100743 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Thorsten Glaser <tg@debian.org> 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 refuse (and I recommend no one accepts) to enter debate with someone putting their involvment in the balance as a way to force their opinion in. -- PEB
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-15 09:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <CB3Fn-28a-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #100739 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Hello Guillem, On Wed 14 Jul 2021 at 11:40PM +02, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Wed, 2021-07-14 at 19:54:56 +0000, 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 not continue beyond >> > Debian 'bullseye'. >> >> What? WHAT? ＷＨＡＴ？ >> >> > The decision is captured here: >> > <https://bugs.debian.org/978636#178> >> >> No reason provided either. This stinks. I’m v̲e̲r̲y̲ disappointed. >> Debian is becoming untenable. Years ago, I had hoped it won’t. > > 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. > > 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 > intention whatsoever to break any of my systems with such layout going > forward, I'm thus planning to spend any necessary volunteer time > implementing any fix, workaround or solution required to avoid having > to use it, in detriment of other Debian volunteer time. I already > started some time ago with dpkg-fsys-usrunmess(8), present already in > the upcoming bullseye release. > > [B] <https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg/FAQ#Q:_Does_dpkg_support_merged-.2Fusr-via-aliased-dirs.3F> 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. It was just about whether to continue to try to support both. -- Sean Whitton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-15 10:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <CB4rM-2sP-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #100745 |
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. It was just about whether to continue to > try to support both. I think a more detailed explanation/expansion/clarification on what exactly this means (and ideally also the rationale behind) that in the bug report would be appreciated. thanks, -Jonathan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+debian-devel@zugschlus.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-15 10:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) |
| Message-ID | <CB5e9-2Xr-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #100746 |
On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 09:56:18 +0200, Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian.org> 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 specify any particular >> implementation of merged-/usr. It was just about whether to continue to >> try to support both. > >I think a more detailed explanation/expansion/clarification on what >exactly this means (and ideally also the rationale behind) that in the >bug report would be appreciated. Can we please delay this discussion until after the release? I don't think we can afford an additional time sink at the moment. Please, get bullseye out of the door first, then decide how many existing users we're going to drive away from Debian in the next round. Greetings Marc -- -------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! ----- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-15 11:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <CB60x-3sk-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #100747 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thorsten Glaser <tg@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-16 04:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: merged /usr considered harmful |
| Message-ID | <CBliV-4Hp-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #100747 |
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 the people who
want to make Debian into a Fedora/RedHat/systemd-OS derivative
are going to rely on it and make our lives harder immediately.
They have proven time and time again, cf. #921012, #964139, that
they’re interested in actively breaking nōn-systemd users’ cases,
even despite policy to the contrary (basically ignoring the latter
until they managed to change policy to their likes).
>bullseye out of the door first, then decide how many existing users
>we're going to drive away from Debian in the next round.
*sigh* and isn’t that true…
I *really* don’t get why…
ⓐ these things aren’t done in a derivative that’s *really* close
to Debian proper but can do all the funky new stuff, preserving
support for the old stuff in Debian itself, and…
ⓑ usrmerge is “needed” anyway; we were working rather well with the
previous (and rather-recently-introduced) model of “either /usr
must be on the same filesystem as / or you must use an initrd to
mount it”.
Frankly, usrmerge is WORSE then what we had before, in all possible
ways. People are going to write unportable scripts and programs, for
example. Symlink farming and moving is also not going to cut it (also,
rules like “if ed(1) is installed, /bin/ed must be able to call it”
is where other distros failed during moving stuff to /usr).
Why is there such heavy incentive to break things that work, for any
price?
Disappointed, and having spent a day crossgrading and moving from
sid to bullseye,
//mirabilos
PS: Please keep me in Cc, I’m not subscribed here, too high-volume
PPS: This is really draining energy. I just refused adopting a package
I use and which is rather useful because I just can’t any more.
And there is flooding and… stuff.
--
22:59⎜<Vutral> glaub ich termkit is kompliziert | glabe nicht das man
damit schneller arbeitet | reizüberflutung │ wie windows │ alles evil
zuviel bilder │ wie ein spiel | 23:00⎜<Vutral> die meisten raffen auch
nicht mehr von windows | 23:01⎜<Vutral> bilderbücher sind ja auch nich
wirklich verbreitet als erwachsenen literatur ‣ who needs GUIs thus?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+debian-devel@zugschlus.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-16 09:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: merged /usr considered harmful |
| Message-ID | <CBqiC-8fu-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #100755 |
On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 01:44:54 +0000 (UTC), Thorsten Glaser <tg@debian.org> 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 -- -------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! ----- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-16 10:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: merged /usr considered harmful |
| Message-ID | <CBry1-u0-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #100756 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 2021-07-16 at 03:18, Marc Haber wrote: > On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 01:44:54 +0000 (UTC), Thorsten Glaser > <tg@debian.org> 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. No, he didn't; he reordered the quoted lines (moving this one ahead of the rest), so that he could put this one line of his reply where it would make the most sense relative to the rest of his reply, without also having to adjust the within-each-line quoting etc.. The "I don't" is in the first line which you yourself didn't quote. The result was slightly confusing to me at first glance, but I figured it out within a minute. If you'd chosen to chide him for reordering lines in a way which (presumably inadvertently) produced an initially-misleading result, that would be one thing, but I don't think it's appropriate to accuse him of snipping out context when he didn't do so. -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-16 12:40 +0200 |
| Subject | endless discussion considered harmful |
| Message-ID | <CBtqa-1J6-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #100755 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Thorsten Glaser <tg@debian.org> writes: ... > I *really* don’t get why… > > ⓐ these things aren’t done in a derivative that’s *really* close > to Debian proper but can do all the funky new stuff, preserving > support for the old stuff in Debian itself, and… This issue has been explored very thoroughly, so if you've not noticed that happening then I suspect that you decided to mostly ignore it. The TC ended up deciding this because it's perfectly possible for reasonable people to agree on the facts, but weigh the importance of the various implications of those facts and available options differently. > Frankly, usrmerge is WORSE then what we had before, in all possible > ways. By saying that, in that way, you give the impression that you assume that the honestly held opinions of a lot of your fellow developers are wrong and/or stupid. Even if you think that, saying it as part of your argument tends to force people make a snap decision on which side of the argument more fools are standing, and then to pick sides, which entrenches opinion, and so is pretty counter-productive if your intention is to persuade. Making these 'unagreeable' decisions is the reason we need a TC. Sadly there are always going to be winners and losers in these cases, otherwise they wouldn't make it to the TC. Deciding to do nothing is a decision too. Do you think the TC didn't take that job seriously enough? Do you think the TC considered insufficient evidence? Did you not submit your most persuasive evidence for some reason? I would hope that you are at least willing to admit that opinions on this subject can differ even when the facts are generally agreed. Also, that while you might be upset that your opinion didn't align with the decision made by the TC, that the people making that decision were devoting their best efforts to doing what they hope will serve the project well in the long run. Cheers, Phil. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd. |-| http://www.hands.com/ http://ftp.uk.debian.org/ |(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg, GERMANY
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-15 20:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <CBdY5-rl-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #100746 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
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 TC decision did not specify any particular >> implementation of merged-/usr. It was just about whether to continue to >> try to support both. > > I think a more detailed explanation/expansion/clarification on what > exactly this means (and ideally also the rationale behind) that in the > bug report would be appreciated. You're right, it would have been good if our Bits mail had linked to some other messages in that thread rather than just the statement of the result of the vote. I'm sorry we didn't spot that before sending it. Additionally, as someone else was kind enough to point out to me off-list, my statement that "the TC decision did not specify any particular implementation of merged-/usr" was rather misleading. What I should have written was that we did not specify any particular implementation of the *migration* to merged-/usr for existing systems. ISTM that "merged-usr-via-aliased-dirs" could refer to the migration path implemented by the usrmerge package, and/or simply the replacement of the directories /lib, /bin etc. with symlinks. To the extent that it refers to the latter, the TC decision does indeed specify that we will implement merged-/usr using merged-usr-via-aliased-dirs. Here are some useful messages we should have linked to: <https://bugs.debian.org/978636#128> <https://bugs.debian.org/978636#143> <https://bugs.debian.org/978636#153> and of course <https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2019/03/msg00001.html> -- Sean Whitton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-15 11:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <CB5Hb-3m8-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #100739 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Wed, 2021-07-14 at 23:40 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Wed, 2021-07-14 at 19:54:56 +0000, 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 not continue beyond > > > Debian 'bullseye'. > > > > What? WHAT? ＷＨＡＴ？ > > > > > The decision is captured here: > > > <https://bugs.debian.org/978636#178> > > > > No reason provided either. This stinks. I’m v̲e̲r̲y̲ disappointed. > > Debian is becoming untenable. Years ago, I had hoped it won’t. > > 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. > > 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 > intention whatsoever to break any of my systems with such layout going > forward, I'm thus planning to spend any necessary volunteer time > implementing any fix, workaround or solution required to avoid having > to use it, in detriment of other Debian volunteer time. I already > started some time ago with dpkg-fsys-usrunmess(8), present already in > the upcoming bullseye release. > > [B] <https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg/FAQ#Q:_Does_dpkg_support_merged-.2Fusr-via-aliased-dirs.3F> > > Thanks, > Guillem Hi, 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 merged-usr-via-moves-and-symlink-farms that is broken. We can say this with certainty because both approaches have been tried, so there's actual real-world data to look at. Just go look at the absolute mess that Suse got themselves into by following that solution - a 10- years-long massive half-done-never-finished headache that took an inordinate amount of work to back out of, and move to the actual working solution that everybody else are using - merged-usr-via- aliased-dirs. On the other hand Fedora/RHEL had a smooth and simple transition using merged-usr-via-aliased-dirs, and that was the end of it. Dpkg has some very minor bugs that rpm/dnf/yum/zypper/whatever do not suffer from. So what? It is perfectly normal as it's software and all softwares have bugs. They could be fixed, worked around, or ignored, like all other bugs. -- Kind regards, Luca Boccassi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Magissia <debianlist@magissia.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-16 13:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <CBuvT-2nI-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #100748 |
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 +0000, 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 not > > > > continue beyond > > > > Debian 'bullseye'. > > > > > > What? WHAT? ＷＨＡＴ？ > > > > > > > The decision is captured here: > > > > <https://bugs.debian.org/978636#178> > > > > > > No reason provided either. This stinks. I’m v̲e̲r̲y̲ > > > disappointed. > > > Debian is becoming untenable. Years ago, I had hoped it won’t. > > > > 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. > > > > 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 > > intention whatsoever to break any of my systems with such layout > > going > > forward, I'm thus planning to spend any necessary volunteer time > > implementing any fix, workaround or solution required to avoid > > having > > to use it, in detriment of other Debian volunteer time. I already > > started some time ago with dpkg-fsys-usrunmess(8), present already > > in > > the upcoming bullseye release. > > > > [B] < > > https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg/FAQ#Q:_Does_dpkg_support_merged-.2Fusr-via-aliased-dirs.3F > > > > > > > Thanks, > > Guillem > > Hi, > > 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 merged-usr-via-moves-and-symlink-farms that is broken. We can > say this with certainty because both approaches have been tried, so > there's actual real-world data to look at. Just go look at the > absolute > mess that Suse got themselves into by following that solution - a 10- > years-long massive half-done-never-finished headache that took an > inordinate amount of work to back out of, and move to the actual > working solution that everybody else are using - merged-usr-via- > aliased-dirs. On the other hand Fedora/RHEL had a smooth and simple > transition using merged-usr-via-aliased-dirs, and that was the end of > it. > > Dpkg has some very minor bugs that rpm/dnf/yum/zypper/whatever do not > suffer from. So what? It is perfectly normal as it's software and all > softwares have bugs. They could be fixed, worked around, or ignored, > like all other bugs. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Helmut Grohne <helmut@subdivi.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-18 23:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <CCm3g-2Dt-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #100763 |
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 would not be broken. Arguably, if it wasn't broken, there would not have been a need to defer the decision to the CTTE as there would have been consensus on choosing the non-broken way already. The CTTE was tasked to choose the less broken one of two broken options and it did. >From a dpkg pov, the aliasing technique continues to be broken and the solution continues to manifest as unintuitive behaviour and related issues. Calling that broken sounds fair to me. The thing that makes me a little grumpy about this is that the proponents of the /usr merge continue stuffing ever more fingers into their ears when faced with problems. I for one wouldn't care as much if the /usr merge wasn't that much of a time sink to me. For instance, I happened to be one of the first affected users of dpkg-shlibdeps ceasing to work. I'd really like to ignore the whole mess and leave it to others (and that includes not opposing it). I also note that there is a subtle difference between those who disagree with the /usr merge and those that disagree with its implementation strategy. The former ones seems like a very small minority to me. As a result, reiterating the "why" is kinda pointless as there already seems to be consensus on that front. As for the how, there seems to be rough consensus that all implementation strategies are broken one way or another. We just get to pick the least painful one and deferred the choice to the CTTE. Maybe someone could fix #858331 et al and we can move on? Helmut
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-19 03:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <CCqqd-5n3-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #100748 |
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 merged-usr-via-moves-and-symlink-farms that is broken. We can > say this with certainty because both approaches have been tried, so > there's actual real-world data to look at. Just go look at the absolute > mess that Suse got themselves into by following that solution - a 10- > years-long massive half-done-never-finished headache that took an > inordinate amount of work to back out of, and move to the actual > working solution that everybody else are using - merged-usr-via- > aliased-dirs. On the other hand Fedora/RHEL had a smooth and simple > transition using merged-usr-via-aliased-dirs, and that was the end of > it. Yes, a single (a couple!?) data point(s) of a strategy used in another unrelated distribution, with completely different packaging stacks and ecosystems, which was done very poorly, has been presented repeatedly. I'm not sure why that has much value TBH. The above seems to also be confusing how and if a design has been deployed, with its inherent (short and long term) properties. A badly performed *deployment* for a better design does not make its properties bad, in the same way that *deploying* a flawed design faster does not make its properties better… 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 .debs shipping actual tracked pathnames, if it had not been for the mess required by merged-usr-via-aliased-dirs. :/ > Dpkg has some very minor bugs that rpm/dnf/yum/zypper/whatever do not > suffer from. So what? It is perfectly normal as it's software and all > softwares have bugs. They could be fixed, worked around, or ignored, > like all other bugs. 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 and across aliased directories, these pathnames might end up disappearing depending on the unpack order, * dpkg-deb -x on the root directory (yes, people use this to recover systems) with any .deb that contains files on real directories under «/», will replace the symlinked directories with real ones, then, yes, I guess "very minor" indeed. But then I completely object to this being classified as bugs in dpkg, as this has been shoved in disregarding that dpkg does *not* support this, and it would require new *features* to be implemented, so this "transition" is founded on assuming features that do not exist, or completely going behind dpkg's back, which sounds great I guess… The problem in general is that this layout introduces unreliability and silently induced breakage stemming from this flawed filesystem layout, which is going to affect the people that are going to benefit the less from its properties, and are the less experience to deal with it. I've tried to update the <https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg/MergedUsr> with more explicit information, in case some people might have missed that from previous instances of this discussion, and added an initial table of properties for both proposals, to avoid cluttering and repeating it on the list, and to ease updating it. We do actually have experience with "an aliased" layout from symlinked /usr/share/doc/ directories, where those are for optional/removable parts of the filesystem, and the symlinks are even known and managed by dpkg. And those have been a major and constant source of packaging bugs. And here we are getting the project installing by default systems that are fighting the packaging system and going on its back, to enable a filesystem design layout mostly experienced admins will benefit from in very special deployment conditions, where final users can very easily suffer from its introduced unreliability (from 3rd-party repos or locally built packages, etc, f.ex.). Because the above has been brought up before and the proponents are well aware of these, I'm afraid at this point the only thing that comes to mind is negligence, TBH. :/ But *shrug*, have at it, I'm tired of the continued and complete disregard of the unreliability issues and subversion of the packaging system, which are supposed to be pillars of our project, every single time. I just replied so that people that might not want to be forced into this stuff know that there's going to be a way out. Regards, Guillem
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+debian-devel@zugschlus.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-19 07:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee) |
| Message-ID | <CCtR7-7FC-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #100805 |
On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 03:36:59 +0200, Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> 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 and across aliased directories, > these pathnames might end up disappearing depending on the unpack > order, > * dpkg-deb -x on the root directory (yes, people use this to recover > systems) with any .deb that contains files on real directories under > «/», will replace the symlinked directories with real ones, > >then, yes, I guess "very minor" indeed. But then I completely object >to this being classified as bugs in dpkg, as this has been shoved in >disregarding that dpkg does *not* support this, and it would require >new *features* to be implemented, so this "transition" is founded on >assuming features that do not exist, or completely going behind >dpkg's back, which sounds great I guess… 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 maintainer to challenge the decisions of the entire project? I fully understand that there is only ONE dpkg maintainer, but a utility THIS central to the entire ecosystem not being team maintained is a HUGE part of the problem. And no, I cannot help and no, you wouldn't want me to write a single line of code in a package THIS central. >The problem in general is that this layout introduces unreliability >and silently induced breakage stemming from this flawed filesystem >layout, which is going to affect the people that are going to benefit >the less from its properties, and are the less experience to deal with >it. Would it not be dpkg's job to work around these flaws? It's not that every other component of a Debian system are perfect. >And here we are getting the project installing by default systems that >are fighting the packaging system and going on its back, to enable a >filesystem design layout mostly experienced admins will benefit from >in very special deployment conditions, where final users can very >easily suffer from its introduced unreliability (from 3rd-party repos >or locally built packages, etc, f.ex.). I must be missing some thing, but isn't it the experienced admins facing reinstalls of vital systems when we finally move to a completely merged /usr, because these usually currently have /usr on a dedicated mountpoint? >Because the above has been brought up before and the proponents are well >aware of these, I'm afraid at this point the only thing that comes to >mind is negligence, TBH. :/ on both sides of the conflict, yes. Greetings Marc -- -------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! ----- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-19 08:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <CCv6x-8oK-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #100808 |
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 contitions instead > being a showstopper for innovation? > > Who is the dpkg maintainer to challenge the decisions of the entire > project? I fully understand that there is only ONE dpkg maintainer, > but a utility THIS central to the entire ecosystem not being team > maintained is a HUGE part of the problem. > > And no, I cannot help and no, you wouldn't want me to write a single > line of code in a package THIS central. > (...) While I agree with what you write here (will answer on a separate mail), I'll ask you -and everybody- to please moderate the tone. It is frustrating to speak in different wavelengths and not be able to hear one another, but we are not going to get anywhere if we just SHOUT LOUDER using our same wavelength. We must find some alternate frequencies to get to a constructive situation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 13 [1] 2 3 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.devel
csiph-web