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

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



Paul Gevers wrote:
>>> 	  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?

How about:

          The historical justifications for the filesystem layout with
          <filename>/bin</filename>, <filename>/sbin</filename>, and
          <filename>/lib</filename> directories separate from their
          equivalents under <filename>/usr</filename> no longer apply
	  today; see

[...]
>> 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.

Yes, I wish the official versions were even half as persuasive as that
one.  I could try to fix up the Debian Wiki page, but I'd rather not.

>>>                                                            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.

Do we have a proposed mechanism for that?  Is usrmerge going to be
made Essential (but a no-op on already-merged systems), or what?

The problem with this announcement that the End of the Legacy
Filesystem Layout Is Nigh is that users get no clue what they're
meant to *do* about it.  My own desktop has been upgraded in place
since Wheezy; unless I'm finally going to be switching onto new
hardware, I'd prefer to plan in terms of doing two separate steps, a
usrmerge in 2022 and a dist-upgrade in 2023.

A vaguer version:

          summary</ulink>. Debian bullseye will be the last Debian
	  release that supports the non-merged-usr layout, so systems
          with an unmerged layout that have been upgraded without a
          reinstall should consider installing the package
          <systemitem role="package">usrmerge</systemitem>.
 
> 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 ;))

We could use &debian; &releasename;, of course - I moan about how
pointless it is when we know it'll only be true for one release, but
at least it takes care of standardised formatting.
-- 
JBR	with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
	sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package


Reply to: