[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: