Re: usrmerge -- plan B?
Marco d'Itri writes ("Re: usrmerge -- plan B?"):
> On Nov 22, Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> > Marco d'Itri writes ("Re: usrmerge -- plan B?"):
> > > So far nobody reported anything significant.
> >
> > I hear there was a major free software project who accidentally
> > usrmerged their build systems and discovered that they then built
> > broken packgaes.
>
> And it was quickly fixed, so no big deal.
I think this allows us to calibrate what you consider `anything
significant'.
There is tradeoff here between risk of breakage, and reduction of
future work (as most clearly explained by Russ). The argument that is
being made is that the risk is low because of a lack of reports of
breakage.
Others have observed that systems most likely to experience trouble
will not have been upgraded. For example, chiark was first installed
with Debian 0.93R5 in 1993. Obviously I haven't usrmerged it. No-one
sensible in my position would do so. So the `lack of reports'
probably stems from a lack of contact of this proposal with the more
difficult parts of the real world.
But what we see here is that the `lack of reports' somehow ignores a
problem sufficiently serious to generate more than one RC bug in
Debian itself, and to require the usrmerge to be reverted at least
temporarily. (Bear in mind of course that happily our build machines
*can* be reverted because they are frequently re-imaged. Others may
not be so lucky.)
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Reply to: