Re: support for merged /usr in Debian
On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 03:55:51PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> AFAICT the original posting in this thread is from someone who is
> trying to make it easier and more automatic to try to produce Debian
> installations which do not have a /usr vs / distinction.
I think a lot of heat in this thread is due to people completely
forgetting that is what this was about.
> What is causing all the heat is the suggestion that support might be
> withdrawn for currently working configurations which _do_ have a /usr
> vs / distinction, or which do mount /usr using / rather than
> initramfs, or some such.
Which actually was never proposed. There were some "what if" type
posts, but noone was mandating a merged /usr anywhere.
> It seems to me that enough people want Debian to retain the
> flexibility which is gained by the /usr vs / division, that we as a
> project should continue to provide it.
It would probably be a good idea to gather all of these use-cases and
put them into the wiki under or linked to the usrmerge entry.
I've seen a lot of "what about situation X" type emails in this thread
with replies with "fixed with solution Y" or "not a /usr merge specific
problem". Some of those would be useful to those people who have the
same situation. It would also mean that any situation that hasn't
got a solution is well-known.
> That does not mean that every user has to have a separate /usr or that
> /usr can't be mounted by the default initramfs. It does mean that
> package maintainers need to continue to place files in / or /usr as
> appropriate, respond approprately to reasonable bug reports, etc.
So the idea would be, at this stage.
1) People who want a merged /usr install the usrmerge package
2) Package maintainers would still install in /usr/bin or /bin etc
- Craig
--
Craig Small (@smallsees) http://enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au
Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/ csmall at : debian.org
GPG fingerprint: 5D2F B320 B825 D939 04D2 0519 3938 F96B DF50 FEA5
Reply to: