Re: Bug#923091: That merged-usr is mandatory is RC
- To: Sam Hartman <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Cc: Ian Jackson <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Guillem Jover <email@example.com>, Cyril Brulebois <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: Bug#923091: That merged-usr is mandatory is RC
- From: Colin Watson <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 13:55:20 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20190520125519.GA706@riva.ucam.org>
- Mail-followup-to: Sam Hartman <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, Ian Jackson <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Guillem Jover <email@example.com>, Cyril Brulebois <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] email@example.com>
- References: <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org> <[🔎] email@example.com> <20190224021017.GB8871@gaara.hadrons.org> <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 07:22:08AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >>>>> "Ian" == Ian Jackson <email@example.com> writes:
> Ian> (sending this because I got the release team address wrong) Ian
> Ian> Jackson writes ("That merged-usr is mandatory is RC"):
> >> In #923091, Guillem (with dpkg maintainer hat on) asks for a
> >> base-installer option to allow installing buster without
> >> merged-usr.
> >> Guillem filed the bug as `wishlist' but given the controversy it
> >> seems to me that it should be RC if for no other reasons than
> >> social cohesion.
> >> CCing the TC FYI (they have already been involved in merged-usr
> >> debates via #914897) and the release team, in case they have an
> >> opinion. FAOD I am not a maintainer of base-files but AFAICT the
> >> base-files maintainer has not expressed an opinion about
> >> severity.
> I've been debating doing this, but continue to believe that it's
> important after several days of pondering. So, per constitution 5.1
> (2), I'd like to explicitly lend support to the idea that it would be
> really good if we provide our users a way to install buster without
> merged /usr. I think that if we do not do so now, we need to be open to
> the possibility that if users are stymied in doing their work, we will
> need to do so in a buster point release even if we would not normally
> add something some might consider a feature in a point release.
> I'm not speaking to whether I think it should be RC or even whether an
> expert only option is good enough.
> I am simply saying that with my DPL hat on, I think this issue is
> important enough it deserves real consideration.
to add a low-priority question for this, following Cyril's advice in
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=923091#10. The text
may not be quite perfect, but I think it's a decent start.
I've deliberately avoided changing the default behaviour in this patch:
its effect is simply to make the behaviour configurable either via
expert mode or using preseeding (by setting base-installer/usrmerge to
false). This is to maximise the chance of being able to get this change
into buster with a minimum of controversy of its own. It is of course
simple to change the default behaviour and/or how prominently the
question is presented by way of follow-up changes, if the project so
Colin Watson [firstname.lastname@example.org]