Bug#914897: debating the wrong thing
Adam Borowski writes:
> I see that we're debating the merits of merged-usr vs non-merged-usr, while
> expending lots of effort and filing bugs (requiring further urgent action of
> unrelated maintainers), for little gain.
There is no "urgent action" required (unlike, say, for the last glibc
update).
If you don't want support for merged-/usr, could you please discuss this
back in 2016 or before that? Also I feel a general discussion would
probably just be too long-winded and touch too many unrelated issues;
there is not even a terse list of claimed problems.
It is very demotivating to have discussed and implemented something
mostly years ago, for people then to come and complain "let's not do
this at all" years later.
Maybe we should also revisit Multi-Arch now that we know that
`Multi-Arch: foreign` relations as implemented can result in non-booting
systems...
Or really revisit the init system question before people file bugs that
require further urgent action for little gain (it's probably too late in
the release cycle to push in elogind anyway). There is also the
question if it is still worth to spend maintainer efforts to ship
sysvinit scripts if this means we lose the advantages of declarative
service files (which means far more work than merged-/usr changes)...
We could also open a tech-ctte bug for secure boot before I spend any
more time on it (there are still a few things). Luckily having this
discussion delays me spending time on the remaining things I wanted to
look at, so at least not more time is wasted. (Not that I currently
have too much time for Debian anyway, and secure boot is quite a lot of
work for something I don't need...)
Ansgar
Reply to: