Re: DEP 17: Improve support for directory aliasing in dpkg
On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 at 13:16, Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, 03 Apr 2023, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> > Please consider it to be a piece of best
> > intentions at reconciling feedback wherever I could. At the time of this
> > writing it certainly is not consensus, but consensus is what I seek
> > here. Without further ado, the full DEP text follows after my name
> > while it also is available at
> > https://salsa.debian.org/dep-team/deps/-/merge_requests/5
>
> I'd like to express some disappointment that nobody replied publicly
> sofar. Last year's developer survey concluded that "Debian should complete
> the merged-/usr transition" was the most important project for Debian [1]
> (among those proposed in the survey). That's what we are trying to do
> here and it would be nice to build some sort of consensus on what it means
> in terms of changes for dpkg.
>
> I know that Guillem (dpkg's maintainer) is generally opposed to the
> approach that Debian has followed to implement merged-/usr but I have
> yet to read his concerns on the changes proposed here
There was an answer from the maintainer, 2 weeks ago:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-dpkg/2023/04/msg00001.html
Essentially, the answer was "no", so...
After Bookworm ships I plan to propose a policy change to the CTTE and
policy maintainers to forbid shipping files in the legacy directories
altogether, followed by a debhelper change to adjust any stragglers
automatically at build time and a mass rebuild, plus MBF for the small
% that does not use dh and a piuparts test to stop migration for
anything that is uploaded and doesn't comply. That should bring the
matter to an end, without needing to modify dpkg.
Kind regards,
Luca Boccassi
Reply to: