[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: merged-/usr transition: debconf or not?



>>>>> "Marco" == Marco d'Itri <md@linux.it> writes:

    Marco> On Nov 10, Sam Hartman <hartmans@suchdamage.org> wrote:
    >> I'm sorry, but I think the only way in which that horse is dead
    >> is that no one has proposed patches to dpkg.
    Marco> Indeed, because the sides of this argument are like three
    Marco> people (one of them being the dpkg maintainer) versus
    Marco> everybody else.  Since some significant work on dpkg is
    Marco> reasonably not forthcoming then this is clearly not a viable
    Marco> transition method.

Um, no one still involved in this thread is talking about transition
methods other than what the TC proposed.
We're all talking about transition methods where /bin becomes a symlink
to /usr/bin.

The question is whether we ever get to a place where people can update
files in a package currently installed to /bin/foo and instead install
them to /usr/bin/foo.
We have a consensus that dpkg bugs make that a bad idea.
That consensus is validated by the TC.
It's not clear to me that bug is likely to get fixed in the bookworm +1
time.

I don't think that means we halt the transition: the TC has made a
decision that we're going forward.
I do think it means probably even after the release of bookworm we
cannot rearrange where packages claim files get installed.
That's the horse I think is not dead.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: