Re: merged /usr vs. symlink farms
On Wed, 2021-08-25 at 09:57:09 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> writes:
> > The problem here is also that if there are two packages like that, on an
> > usrmerge system, we would not know this is happening.
Also this does not need to come from "buggy" packaging practices.
> I agree, of course, but I don't see a way in which Policy can help with
> that problem unless this packaging decision was intentional and the person
> who made that decision would have chosen otherwise if Policy had said to
> not do it.
> This seems more like an appropriate check for an archive-wide QA tool
> looking for cross-package problems.
I've said this many times over the months (years!?), that while this
can easily affect stuff from the archive, which we do control, where
policy applies and where we could try to poorly reimplement the checks
that dpkg does to detect them in some QA checker, even though the
following problems would still apply:
- the checks cannot be performed (only) over static snapshots of
the archive, as this would affect partial upgrades too,
- the checks would need to take into account packages we have
stopped shipping way in the past as those can linger around
installed,
- the checks would have a hard time with the non-declarative side
of the packaging stack,
is that something else I expect to have a non-zero chance to bite users
are all those common practices that people give for granted and that we
have supposedly supported in the past, as guaranteed by our packaging
system, such as:
- keeping installed packages that have stopped shipping in Debian,
- installation of packages from third-parties, or from local
overlays or similar, or even rebuilt forks of packages from Debian,
- installation or holding of Debian packages from older releases,
- local diversions or alternatives,
which are out of our QA reach.
The fact that the supporters of a *filesystem layout* have been happy
to dismiss and ignore this and have been pushing for what I think can
be easily described as the worst ever "transition" done in Debian, very
sadly, for me this whole topic marks a before and after in Debian, and
has put my trust in the technical side of the project into question.
Of course some of those supporters are now agreeing these problems can
be insidious, progress I guess. And at the same time others are claiming
that acknowledging those problems would hold back the entire distribution,
while others are now saying we should stop doing packaging changes because,
well, these problems perhaps are potentially problematic, the irony.
And then we get people raving over what's the worst and most atrocious
hacks to pile on into dpkg to try to workaround the actual root cause
(turtles^Wnasty hacks and kludges all the way down I guess). Which I
obviously expect to eventually be coerced into merging into dpkg at
some point or another via our esteemed Authority.
From where I'm sitting Debian is the project that lost its way…
Sadly,
Guillem
Reply to: