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

Bug#985502: release-notes: suggestions for usrmerge section


On 19-03-2021 11:25, Justin B Rye wrote:
> Package: release-notes
> Severity: wishlist
> Tags: patch
> Trying to make our coverage in issues.dbk more helpful.
>> 	  Historically there was a reason to split root level
>> 	  <filename>bin</filename>, <filename>sbin</filename> and
>> 	  <filename>lib</filename> directories into
> Nobody ever split /bin etc. "into" /usr; the historical standard was
> to have those directories to split things "out from" the equivalents
> under /usr.

When I read that the first three times, I read it the opposite of what I
meant, can we improve even further?

>> 	  <filename>/usr/</filename>, but that is no more.
> Unclear; say "but this justification no longer applies today".


> Preferably this bald assertion would go with a link to an explanation;
> and I suppose that has to be
> https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/TheCaseForTheUsrMerge
> (unless the Debian Wiki version suddenly gets much better).

I really liked this (linked from that page):
http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2010-December/074114.html but
I guess it doesn't make a strong link.

>>                                                            Debian
>> 	  bullseye will be the last Debian release that supports the
>> 	  non-merged-usr layout.
> Unless the plan is for the bookworm Release Notes to tell users with
> legacy layouts that they can't upgrade, we should be pointing at
> usrmerge here.

We have bug #841666 for that? It wasn't concluded there yet. And I'd
expect we'll force the upgrade then, not something users would need to
actively do.

This patch is the first place where we <quote> a release name. Do we
want quotes everywhere? I personally don't like to quote bullseye or
buster, but emphasizing sounds OK. And indeed, I wasn't consistent with
"Debian bullseye" here, maybe that should have been plain "bullseye"
(without quotes ;))


Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: