[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#914897: tech-ctte: Should debootstrap disable merged /usr by default?

Le lundi, 4 mars 2019, 22.28:38 h CET Margarita Manterola a écrit :
> Hi,
> > - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> > 
> > The winners are:
> > 	 Option M `middle`
> > 	 Option H `hard`
> > 
> > - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> > 
> > Dear Marga, as Chair, could you please make use of your casting vote to
> > break this tie?
> I'm using my casting vote to vote in favor of M `middle` (i.e. consider
> that the desirable situation at the time of bullseye is that both directory
> schemes are allowed, all packages can be built on either).
> My rationale for taking this decision is as follows:
> Right now we are not ready to migrate to building on merged-usr systems in
> Debian, there are still 29 known packages that are broken and need to be
> fixed.  My expectation is that those packages will be fixed in the not so
> distant future (i.e.  before bullseye) and that after that, the buildd
> profile in debootstrap will default to having a merged /usr, so that new
> buildd chroots will use that setup.
> However, we have no control over how fast individual developers and
> derivative distributions will migrate to the new format. It's possible that
> more time will be required until everyone is ready to migrate.
> Additionally, as of our current understanding of the issue, there are no
> known problems for building on a non-merged system. Supporting this
> setup does not imply additional work from the point of view of our
> maintainers (for now).
> In the future, it would be a bug if a problem is discovered with building a
> package on a non-merged /usr system. I understand that this would mean
> additional work to the maintainers of such a package, but at least as of
> today this is a non-issue. Eventually, when fixing such bugs becomes a
> significant burden for our maintainers, it can be decided that the setup is
> no-longer supported, but my personal recommendation would be to wait at
> least until bullseye+1. That's why I'm voting "Middle" for bullseye.

I have announced this decision on debian-devel-announce:

I am therefore hereby closing this bug.

Thank you to all involved parties!


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: