Re: merged-/usr transition: debconf or not?
On Tue, 09 Nov 2021 at 20:27:24 +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 08:19:40PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> > I'm worried that by saying that unmerged is still supported in 12, we open a
> > can of worms and just punt this down to yet another release cycle.
>
> No, unmerged will not be supported in 12. Having the ability to create
> something does not make it supported.
That was my intention, yes. My intention when drafting the TC resolution
was that unmerged-/usr Debian 12 'bookworm' systems should be technically
possible but unsupported - similar to how downgrading packages is possible
but unsupported, and configuring dpkg --path-exclude is possible but
unsupported. If you contrive to create an unmerged bookworm system
and then try to upgrade it, that is likely to fail, and that's on you
to resolve.
> > E.g., what exactly does this mean for backports?
>
> Stuff from backports is post-release, so requires a merged system.
Yes, I think this is right. IMO you can't validly enable bookworm-backports
without first upgrading to bookworm, by which time the automatic transition
mechanism called for by the TC resolution should have taken effect.
However, I think bookworm-updates and bookworm-security still need
to cope with unmerged-/usr systems to the same extent that bookworm
itself does, because it's valid to upgrade from bullseye to bookworm +
bookworm-updates + bookworm-security in a single step.
smcv
Reply to: