Bug#914897: debating the wrong thing
Adam Borowski writes:
> On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 10:25:46PM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> I believe the difference between those is less than between suboptions of 1
> and 3, but then, as an opponent of 2 as a whole I'm biased.
>
>> Switching to (1) or (3a-with-no-support-in-buster) will mean merged-/usr
>> systems would no longer be supported.
>
> They'd be exactly as supported as they are today. Ie -- they'll continue to
> work,
Yes.
> and continue to be useless for building packages without a clean
> chroot.
Oh? What makes you think so?
You are free to correct my earlier estimate about the number of
problems. So long I'll assume I'm not totally wrong. If I'm wrong by a
factor of 3, then 99% of the packages will just build fine.
And fixing any problem is in most cases straightforward.
>> In this case someone would have to write a unusrmerge program to convert
>> systems with merged-/usr to systems with unmerged-/usr.
>> Such a program doesn't exist yet and is probably more complicated than
>> usrmerge: for example how would it know that a /sbin/iptables ->
>> /usr/sbin/iptables symlink would have to be created when unmerging the
>> system? Moving files from /usr to / is also more likely to run out of
>> disk space (if separate partitions are used for /usr and /).
>>
>> I'm not sure how long it would take to get this right and so agree that
>> (2) or (3b) or (3a-with-support-in-buster) are reasonable choices.
>
> unusrmerge would still be still far less work than continuing with 2.
Why do you think so? Trivial patches for the remaining few packages
seem easier.
> Yet I don't understand your claim why 1 or 3a w/o usrmerge-in-buster
> would cause any problems. In fact, they require no work at all (in
> Buster's cycle) beyond an upload of debootstrap.
Unless someone builds a package in an already existing install... If
not being able to build packages in existing installations is not a
problem, I'm even less sure what the problem with merged-/usr by default
is supposed to be?
Ansgar
Reply to: