Bug#978636: move to merged-usr-only?
Simon McVittie writes:
> Should we be more specific than this in what we vote on, to avoid
> later having to adjudicate between developers who say that a particular
> implementation is or isn't merged-usr?
> Some developers seem to be using "merged /usr" to refer to multiple
> concrete layouts:
> 1. an arrangement where all regular files that have traditionally been
> in /bin, /sbin, /lib and /lib64 are physically located in /usr,
> with symlinks /bin -> usr/bin, /sbin -> usr/sbin, /lib -> usr/lib,
> /lib64 -> usr/lib64
Having filed this bug, I only consider this "merged-/usr".
Symlink farms (/bin/sh -> /usr/bin/sh) are a different layout and should
be given a different name.
With that said, I consider the symlink farms also unrealistic for use as
an intermediate state in the transition. This was tried by another
distribution and it didn't work out; nobody said why Debian wouldn't
end up in the same unfortunate situation from which it is even harder to
migrate to merged-/usr.
>From my point of view the only realistic proposal for migration so far
is usrmerge, possibly with modifications.
We might also want to be extra careful and use non-merged-/usr on
buildds for one more release and only move them to merged-/usr for the
release after merged-/usr was made mandatory (so any packages installed
as part of the upgrade to the release that makes merged-/usr mandatory
are still built on systems with non-merged-/usr for the reasons we do so
But I consider these implementations details; it's only useful to
discuss them when we know where we are going and most (or hopefully all)
detail questions probably don't need the technical committee either.