Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.devel > #101034
| From | Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.debian.devel |
| Subject | Re: merged /usr |
| Date | 2021-08-15 19:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <CMrEm-46h-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (5 earlier) <CM17b-3Fo-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <CM1TA-4bK-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <CM3iF-5c9-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <CMb6x-1MD-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <CMl5T-8g6-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 at 11:52:21 +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> You snipped both times the [for me] logical consequence that all
> bookworm build chroots are kept in a [then unsupported] unmerged state
> as "one of the last things" aka until bookworm is discontinued,
> so that they are building the packages who do will encounter unmerged
> systems in the upgrade as a user can perfectly well upgrade from bullseye
> to the ninth point-release of bookworm months after the initial release
> of bookworm.
Hmm, that's a good point. That hadn't occurred to me, and you're right,
it's not ideal.
One way out of this would be to say that it is a RC bug for packages
in bookworm to have different contents when built in equivalent
merged-/usr and unmerged-/usr chroots/containers (a higher severity
than is currently applied, which I think would be a "normal" or "minor"
bug for violating the Policy "should" rule that packages should be
reproducible). That would mean we can validly merge /usr in buildd
chroots, and if any package ends up broken in that situation, it's up
to the package maintainer (or our usual NMU/bug-squashing processes) to
fix it. According to https://isdebianreproducibleyet.com/, fewer than 5%
of Debian packages are non-reproducible for any of the reasons we test,
including but not limited to whether the buildd chroot was merged-/usr
(the reproducible-builds infrastructure uses unmerged-/usr for "build 1"
and then installs usrmerge before "build 2"), so that's an upper bound
for the number of packages affected.
Another way out of this would be to say that merged /usr is the only
state supported for bookworm, with the exception that chroots/containers
that will never be upgraded beyond bookworm (+ updates + security)
are allowed to remain unmerged-/usr (and we'd probably want to say
that adding bookworm-backports to an unmerged-/usr chroot/container
is officially not supported either). That would mean the unmerged
buildd chroots are (just about) in a supported state, while still
letting maintainers assume/require merged-/usr post-bookworm, because
by definition the chroots/containers where that exception applies are
never going to reach a post-bookworm state (they'll be discarded when
they are no longer used, instead).
> So, your reasoning is that tooling will help us ensure that packages
> built on merged systems work on non-merged systems? Good!
This is basically another phrasing of the first option I described above,
I think.
> No flag day
> required then, we can just naturally upgrade all systems as they
> encounter the $magic and have new buildd chroots bootstrapped now
> merged instead of enforcing them being unmerged still
> (modulo whatever the implementation itself might be of course).
If we are going to reach a state where package maintainers can
assume/require merged-/usr (for example being able to drop code paths that
only needed to exist because unmerged-/usr is supported), then we need
some point in the release/upgrade process where that requirement becomes
official - and IMO that point in time might as well be a particular Debian
release, because that would be consistent with the rules we normally
use to drop other code that was historically required but is no longer
relevant, like Breaks/Replaces or workarounds in maintainer scripts.
It isn't a flag day in the sense that the whole world needs to switch at
the same time, more like a support cutoff (like the way we discontinue
security support as a stable suite gets older, first for selected
problematic packages and architectures and then for the entire suite).
That point doesn't necessarily have to be bookworm r0, but I think
bookworm r0 is the earliest it can be. If we're scared of commitment,
we could say that merged-/usr is the only supported layout for bookworm,
but not pull the trigger on allowing unmerged-/usr code paths to be
removed until bookworm+1 - but that would leave those code paths untested,
and we know that untested code usually doesn't work.
Strictly speaking, the cutoff in the timeline I proposed isn't bookworm r0,
it's the first time you update from testing/unstable *after* bookworm r0.
> ¹ e.g. Marga is saying in #978636 msg#153 that migration from unmerged
> is not required to be implemented for bookworm [and therefore
> effectively at all] for unmerged to be unsupported in bookworm.
Well, we have the usrmerge package, so an implementation exists. It isn't
perfect, and I hope that between now and the bookworm freeze, we can get a
better migration path than `apt install usrmerge` as currently implemented
(either in a new revision of the usrmerge package, or elsewhere); but it
mostly works in practice.
Doing what usrmerge does from a maintainer script is pretty scary from a
robustness/interruptability point of view. Without my Technical Committee
hat on, one route that I think should be considered is deferring the
migration until the next boot and doing it from the initramfs, so that
nothing else will be concurrently writing to the root filesystem. In terms
of the mechanics of upgrading to bookworm, this would mean that all the
bookworm packages get installed into an unmerged-/usr system running the
bullseye kernel, and then the next reboot switches to a merged-/usr system
running the bookworm kernel.
The reasons Marga is being careful not to mandate any specific
implementation in that message are that detailed design is specifically
outside the Technical Committee's role, and that the TC doesn't want to
constrain the implementation: whatever implementation plans people come
up with, we would like the best one to be used, and we certainly don't
want a TC resolution that preemptively forbids the best implementation
because we hadn't thought of it at the time.
> ³ I understand that only a subset actually breaks for non-merged if
> build on merged, but I prefer to assume that the first one is such
> a package to be prepared rather than pray to deity (pun intended) and
> hope for the best.
It certainly wouldn't be ideal for the security team (or package
maintainers) to have to fix package reproducibility before a security
update can be released, but I think we already have situations where
the security team have to fix a FTBFS, test failure, Lintian autoreject
or other non-security-related RC bug before a security update can be
released. If we say that merged-/usr vs. unmerged-/usr non-reproducibility
is RC, then it's "just" another class of RC bug that might need fixing
before the package can be updated successfully.
smcv
Back to linux.debian.devel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
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
csiph-web