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

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

Hi Justin,

On 19-03-2021 19:26, Justin B Rye wrote:
>           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


> 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.

Ack :).

>>>>                                                            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?

I'm not aware of the ideas on this front....

> 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>.

...so I'm a bit reluctant on this front.

>> 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;,

But those are also meant to be used in e.g., filenames, so are unquoted,
unliteral, un...

 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.

Yes, I refrain from using these entities in new not-reusable text
conform bug #927679.


Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: