Bug#994388: tech-ctte: More specific advice regarding merged-/usr and implications of #978636
On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 12:35:38PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> https://salsa.debian.org/debian/tech-ctte/-/blob/master/994388_merged_usr_advice/draft.md
Many thanks for your work, and sorry for not participating earlier.
I agree with you that it would be good to send advice out sooner
rather than later.
I also agree with pretty much all you're saying in the text.
In particular:
> Questions for the committee:
>
> - §(Definitions and current status): Does everyone agree with my
> characterization of where we are now?
Ack from me.
> - §(Upgrade path from Debian 11 to Debian 12): Does everyone agree
> with what I've written here about the implications of #978636?
I think I can follow the logic, and I agree with it.
> - §(Upgrade path from Debian 11 to Debian 12): Is the last paragraph
> "If a suitable transition mechanism is not available by the time the
> Debian 12 freeze is reached..." necessary, or is it implicit that
> *obviously* we won't demand that the project carries on with merged-/usr
> if it turns out not to be possible?
I think it should be included.
> - §(Testing and QA): Do we want to recommend this?
It does feel a bit like micro-managing to me. But the reasoning
makes sense. I'm fine with recommending it.
> - §(Building packages): Does everyone agree with my interpretation of
> what we agreed in #914897 and its implications? Do we need to make a
> recommendation for the Debian 12 development cycle, or is it enough
> to assume that the "middle" option that we resolved in #914897
> continues to be our opinion?
I agree and I don't think we need a new recommendation.
> - §(Building packages): I almost wrote an extra paragraph about how
> this class of bugs becomes a non-issue when merged-/usr is the only
> supported layout - but actually it doesn't! If we consider building
> packages while having /usr/local/bin/sed to be a supported thing you
> can do, then we need to ensure that /usr/local/bin/sed doesn't get
> hard-coded into the resulting package, and the steps you take to
> make that happen are the same as the steps you take to fix this class
> of bugs.
FWIW I think we've traditionally considered such /usr/local -related
issues as bugs in the build setup rather than in the packages.
> - §(Moratorium on moving files' logical locations into /usr):
> I think we should stop moving files into /usr on an individual basis,
> at least until the consequences are fully understood, and perhaps for
> the whole Debian 12 release cycle (after which, assuming merged-/usr
> goes as we have recommended, maintainers can swap their logical location
> without needing a transitional mechanism any more). Implementing
> merged-/usr as the only supported layout means that moving files into
> /usr on an individual basis is mostly unnecessary, because it has no
> practical effect any more.
Agreed on the moratorium, mainly because of the unnecessity and the
error-prone nature of the moves. Sam brought up concerns about the
Replaces failure mode mentioned in the text, that part might need
changing.
On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 10:59:37AM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> I am a little concerned that usrmerge is doing more intrusive surgery on
> a running system than even what's normal for an apt/dpkg-based upgrade,
> so I would prefer not to rule out designs that defer this action to a
> later time.
I share this concern.
--
Niko
Reply to: