Re: usrmerge -- plan B?
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> Michael Stone writes ("Re: usrmerge -- plan B?"):
>> Let's restate this so it can stand clearly on its own:
>> "We ran into some unanticipated issues when we usrmerged our build
>> systems, and we think the way to fix that is to force merge every one
>> of our users' systems."
> That does seem to be the position that is being advanced.
I think this is an unfair characterization of the thread, and adds
considerably more heat than light.
We ran into unanticipated problems *with supporting full portability of
packages between usrmerged systems and non-usrmerged systems*. (And I'm
not sure the problems were really that unanticipated -- that problem is
hard.) We're now evaluating what that means for the overall goal of
supporting systems with merged /usr. One possibility is to not attempt to
support that use case, which can be done in two ways: never merging /usr,
or merging all systems.
In this sort of discussion, it's very important to keep distinct the point
we're discussing and our positions on that point, and try to maintain our
agreement on what is even under discussion while we disagree.
To support my side of that, I promise to not mischaracterize consensus on
*what we're debating* as consensus on *what the outcome should be*, and
keep those two things entirely separate.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: