Re: merged-/usr-via-symlinks damage control (was Re: usrmerge -- plan B?)
Hi!
On Tue, 2019-02-19 at 05:49:24 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> So, as part of damage control I'm going to:
>
> - include the Build-Tainted-By patches into dpkg 1.19.5.
Done.
> - include a bug-script in dpkg for reportbug to report whether the
> system has been broken by the merged-/usr-via-symlinks hack.
Done.
> - file a bug on reportbug to request reporting that for all packages.
Done. <https://bugs.debian.org/923090>
> - file a bug on base-installer to request an option to install
> non-broken systems due to merged-/usr-via-symlinks.
Done. <https://bugs.debian.org/923091>
> I'm also pondering whether to implement checks for the broken
> merged-/usr-via-symlinks within «dpkg --audit», even though I don't
> really want to, as that would imply hardcoding Debian-specific
> pathnames in there. :(
I still have to think about this one. :/
> And I'm probably going to end up writing a unmerge-usr-via-symlinks
> script so that people with damaged systems can go back somewhat to a
> sane state, and to open the possibility for a fully automated migration
> to a proper and correct merged-/usr w/o all the problems above.
And I might need to start on this soon enough. :(
In addition, given that most probably Debian buster will end up
installing broken systems by default. I might end up also looking into
generating fixed minimal netinst images or mini netboot images with a
fixed debootstrap, or I guess just cdebootstrap present which has
sane behavior. But I would definitely not be able host the artifacts
for those. :/
Thanks,
Guillem
Reply to: