Hello, On Thu 15 Jul 2021 at 09:56AM +02, Jonathan Carter wrote: > Hi Sean > > On 2021/07/15 09:04, Sean Whitton wrote: >> 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. > > I think a more detailed explanation/expansion/clarification on what > exactly this means (and ideally also the rationale behind) that in the > bug report would be appreciated. You're right, it would have been good if our Bits mail had linked to some other messages in that thread rather than just the statement of the result of the vote. I'm sorry we didn't spot that before sending it. Additionally, as someone else was kind enough to point out to me off-list, my statement that "the TC decision did not specify any particular implementation of merged-/usr" was rather misleading. What I should have written was that we did not specify any particular implementation of the *migration* to merged-/usr for existing systems. ISTM that "merged-usr-via-aliased-dirs" could refer to the migration path implemented by the usrmerge package, and/or simply the replacement of the directories /lib, /bin etc. with symlinks. To the extent that it refers to the latter, the TC decision does indeed specify that we will implement merged-/usr using merged-usr-via-aliased-dirs. Here are some useful messages we should have linked to: <https://bugs.debian.org/978636#128> <https://bugs.debian.org/978636#143> <https://bugs.debian.org/978636#153> and of course <https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2019/03/msg00001.html> -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature