Re: merged /usr considered harmful (was Re: Bits from the Technical Committee)
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
> alreadystarted some time ago with dpkg-fsys-usrunmess(8), present
> already inthe upcoming bullseye release.
>
[B]
https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg/FAQ#Q:_Does_dpkg_support_merged-.2Fusr-via-aliased-dirs.3F
>
Since the dpkg developer and maintainer Guillem considers merged /usr
broken by design, maybe Debian should consider to use some other
package management software for the peace of mind for people involved
in the project? Maybe guix could be usable?
Reply to: