Re: Debhelper and /lib/systemd vs /usr/lib/systemd

[Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net>]

Simon Richter:
> Hi,
> 
> On 25.08.21 21:45, Sam Hartman wrote:
> 
>> The dpkg maintainer hasn't been happy with the discussions here, and
>> I think facilitating to a level where Guillem is part of the
>> consensus is beyond my skill.
> 
> The discussion so far has been around the question whether there is
> actually a problem and whether it is actually required for the dpkg
> database to be consistent with the file system. It is unsurprising that
> the dpkg maintainer has an opinion about that.
> 
>> So I don't actually know how to get to something actionable.  I do
>> believe the chance of breakage if we move around paths inside
>> packages is high enough that we should block path canonicalization on
>> a dpkg that can handle that, even if that takes a long time.
> 
> We have a few half-baked solution proposals.
> 
> Combining the parts from Ted Ts'o (for usrmerged systems) and mine (for
> not-yet usrmerged systems) would be the complex and generic approach.
> 
> I think I've also seen some ideas along the lines of "have the usrmerge
> package patch the dpkg database", which would be simpler.
> 
> Would it make sense to start a wiki page?
> 
>    Simon
> 

As I understand it, the "have usrmerge package patch the dpkg database"
approach will only work if we ensure that each and every package stop
using / in bookworm+1.  Else we are back to the same problem that Sam
listed with package splits (just with the paths inverted).

That is, a solution based on that plan should also involve a plan for
getting each and every package affected by the usrmerge updated in
bookworm+1.

Thanks,
~Niels