Luca Boccassi <bl...@debian.org> writes: > If it was possible to do it, it would have already happened, and we > wouldn't be discussing it at all, it would have just been done.
Has someone written a patch against dpkg that causes it to do the right thing? > In the end, at the very least this is a _workable_ proposal. It might > not be ideal, but we know it can work. What's your counter-proposal? Someone who believes strongly in merged-/usr should write a patch against dpkg that causes it to work properly with merged-/usr, including edge cases like files moving out of /bin and /lib between packages and dpkg -S working properly. I understand that you don't think that patch will be accepted. But we don't actually know that since so far as I know it doesn't exist. We're arguing in the abstract about a future problem that hasn't happened yet because we don't have working code to argue about. > Sitting back and just saying "someone better get a fix into dpkg", > without neither doing it nor explaining _how_ that could ever be > possible is not a workable proposal, it's just doing nothing while > letting the clock run. I do not have the resources (time and energy) to write the patch for dpkg myself, indeed. However, I also have not been advocating moving to merged-/usr. This feels like part of that work to me. I have been doing some work short of writing the patch, such as laying out what I think the missing pieces are and trying to propose an implementation design that could get some consensus, and flush out the remaining problems. (To be clear, others have been doing more of that than I have, but I think it's a bit inaccurate to say that I've only been complaining and not trying to help arrive at a proper fix.) -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
