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

Bug#994388: tech-ctte: More specific advice regarding merged-/usr and implications of #978636

Hello Simon,

On Tue 05 Oct 2021 at 07:48PM +01, Simon McVittie wrote:

> On Sun, 03 Oct 2021 at 16:52:15 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> On Mon 27 Sep 2021 at 10:59AM +01, Simon McVittie wrote:
>> > On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 at 15:35:11 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> >> (1) The reason for this, to put it a bit simplistically, is that we
>> >> don't require apt to perform the upgrade between stable releases in any
>> >> particular order, right?  Or are there other reasons distinct from this
>> >> one that I'm missing?  I think it would be good to state the thing about
>> >> apt (in better language than mine) in the text.
>> >
>> > I think that's the main reason. We have not traditionally mandated
>> > the use of a special upgrade tool like Ubuntu's do-release-upgrade(8),
>> > so the upgrade happens in whatever order apt chooses, which can vary
>> > between machines.
>> >
>> > Another reason why I think we want Debian 12 packages to be installable
>> > onto non-merged-/usr systems is that to be able to do our development work,
>> > they need to be installable onto testing/unstable systems, which (again)
>> > means that the upgrade order is undefined.
>> Right, we're on the same page then, but would you agree with me that the
>> resolution should state this justification explicitly?
> I hope that
> <https://salsa.debian.org/debian/tech-ctte/-/merge_requests/4>
> implements this to your satisfaction. If not, suggestions for better
> wording welcome - I would prefer not to be the only one writing this
> document!

Thanks, yes, this addresses my feedback.

I've pushed some wording tweaks.  Hope you don't mind me not filing a
MR -- seemed uncontroversial so thought I'd just push.

Sean Whitton

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: