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

Re: usrmerge -- plan B?

Am Fr., 23. Nov. 2018 um 13:45 Uhr schrieb Ian Jackson
> Russ Allbery writes ("Re: usrmerge -- plan B?"):
> > This is a much better summary of the thread, and I wish that you would
> > have said this instead of claiming incorrectly that those same people are
> > the ones advocating for a full merge of all systems.
> Marco d'Itri writes ("Re: usrmerge -- plan B?"):
> > If you are seriously concerned with the small issuses caused by the
> > transition to merged-/usr then I have a better proposal.
> > Plan C: just stop supporting non-merged-/usr systems since these
> > problems are caused by having to support both, and there is no real
> > benefit in doing that other than pleasing the few people who are scared
> > by changes.

For this I actually wonder: Why don't we just do that and enforce the
usrmerge on unstable?
I think we are caring too much about the stability of the unstable
suite, and absolutely miss the chance of just running experiments to
gather data on the feasibility of changes.
What we could do in this case is for example to just make the usrmerge
migration mandatory for users of the unstable suite and see what kind
of issues and how many of them users will actually encounter. The
suite is called unstable afterall :-)
If there are actual issues encountered, we can always revert a change
and not have it go into stable, but in any case we will get a lot
better testing on the migration and a lot more data on whether there
actually are any issues.

Since new installations will be usrmerged by default anyway and there
is no reason or easy way to swich back to a split-usr system, I think
the issues related to a split-usr-system will go away in the long run
anyway. During distribution upgrades there is a lot that can be wrong
and a lot of stuff the administrator needs to care about (config file
changes, different featuresets of tools, software being removed from
the archive, ...), so if the usrmerge package has a sensible fallback
with information to the system administrator on what to do in case of
an error, and works for 98% of all users anyway, I see no reason not
to try using it and save us from an eternal transition period or pain
of maintaining two configurations.


I welcome VSRE emails. See http://vsre.info/

Reply to: