Hello Guillem, On Wed 14 Jul 2021 at 11:40PM +02, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Wed, 2021-07-14 at 19:54:56 +0000, Thorsten Glaser wrote: >> Sean Whitton dixit: >> >* #978636 move to merged-usr-only? >> > >> > We were asked to decide whether or not Debian 'bookworm' should >> > continue to support systems which are not using the merged-usr >> > filesystem layout. We decided that support should not continue beyond >> > Debian 'bullseye'. >> >> What? WHAT? ＷＨＡＴ？ >> >> > The decision is captured here: >> > <https://bugs.debian.org/978636#178> >> >> No reason provided either. This stinks. I’m v̲e̲r̲y̲ disappointed. >> Debian is becoming untenable. Years ago, I had hoped it won’t. > > I've been meaning to send a note about this for some time now, but > as I feel it keeps getting ignored, it always seems a bit pointless. > > But in any case, given that merged-usr-via-aliased-dirs is not really > supported by dpkg anyway, it is broken by design [B], I have no > intention whatsoever to break any of my systems with such layout going > forward, I'm thus planning to spend any necessary volunteer time > implementing any fix, workaround or solution required to avoid having > to use it, in detriment of other Debian volunteer time. I already > started some time ago with dpkg-fsys-usrunmess(8), present already in > the upcoming bullseye release. > > [B] <https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg/FAQ#Q:_Does_dpkg_support_merged-.2Fusr-via-aliased-dirs.3F> Just to confirm, when you say "merged-usr-via-aliased-dirs", you mean what I would get if I typed 'debootstrap bullseye /foo', right? I would like to note that the TC decision did not specify any particular implementation of merged-/usr. It was just about whether to continue to try to support both. -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature