Hi Ian, You're not citing any concrete examples of things that will supposedly break. AFAICS the closest you got was: On Sat, 10 Feb 2018, Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote: > Another bad consequence is that some existing configurations that do > not, for whatever reason, mount /usr early, will be harder to set up. Which might be a fair point, except that late mounting of /usr became explicitly unsupported with the release of Stretch: https://www.debian.org/releases/stretch/armel/release-notes/ch-information.en.html#late-mounting-usr The adoption of usrmerge was blocked before on the basis that it was too late in the release cycle. We are now fairly early in the release cycle. That being the case, I think we should let the people volunteering to do the work to get on with it without delay. That way there will be plenty of time to address any real downsides that might be revealed. Cheers, Phil. P.S. I've not even installed usrmerge on any systems as yet, so please don't assume that I'm a rabid supporter of this effort -- it just seems entirely sane to me, whereas the pushback you pointed at ... not so much. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd. |-| http://www.hands.com/ http://ftp.uk.debian.org/ |(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg, GERMANY
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature