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

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 07:09:59PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 17:54:49 +0000, Jonathan McDowell
> <noodles@earth.li> wrote:
> >You're not communicating clearly and this is indeed causing problems
> >in this thread. You said "all my clients run unstable", not "all my
> >client machines run unstable". You've also later said "I've not
> >installed any new Debian systems at any client site". It is not
> >unreasonable that the casual reader will assume you are using the
> >term to mean a 3rd party who you are managing system for.
> You're right to blame for only speaking english for 30 years of my
> life and living in a country where TV programs are dubbed. I am also
> deeply worried about the Operating System I still care about after 15
> years and which works so hard to feel not like a home any more.

I'm not sure how you've taken any of this meaning from my message. You
have inconsistently used certain terms such that it's not surprising
they have been misunderstood by others in this thread. I am not in any
way complaining about your grasp of the English language.

> >To attempt to add some signal to my noise, the gist of this thread seems
> >to be that Marco wants to make it easy for those who wish to have a
> >merged /usr to do so, and is not planning to force this upon anyone.
> I would believe that if it were somebody else.

If you are going to assume bad faith on the parts of other developers
then it is very unlikely you will see a satisfactory resolution of this
discussion. It doesn't seem a helpful way to view your interactions with
the project. I'll accept Marco's style can be very abrupt, but having a
knee-jerk reaction that he must be up to no good is not helpful.

> >As far as I can tell what he wants to happen is a) files in / and
> >/usr locations not to conflict and b) policy to state that this
> >should be the case.
> If that is really the gist of those editorial changes[1], then this is
> actually a misunderstanding. Maybe UsrMerge is even a misnomer.

These are not editorial changes. There's a clear desire for a change in
the way things are handled, and I don't believe there is any need to
ascribe an ulterior motive to it. Marco wants to be able to merge / and
/usr on his systems. Various other people do as well. If we, as a
project, say that we should not have duplicate file names between these
portions of the file system then they can have their desire and the rest
of us can continue to keep them separate.

It seems to me to be one of those requests that really doesn't cause an
imposition on those who can't care about the change (or even actively
don't want to do it), while being really quite helpful to those who want
to do things a bit differently.


[1] NMF.

   101 things you can't have too   |  .''`.  Debian GNU/Linux Developer
       much of : 48 - Pies.        | : :' :  Happy to accept PGP signed
                                   | `. `'   or encrypted mail - RSA
                                   |   `-    key on the keyservers.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: