Le ven. 27 août 2021 à 17:20, Theodore Ts'o <ty...@mit.edu> a écrit :
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 03:39:57AM +0100, Phil Morrell wrote: > > > - reverting the changes in deboostrap in sid, bullseye (and ideally > > > in buster too), > > > - reverting the notion that split-/usr is unsupported (which includes > > > the extremely confusing interpretation about this applying to > > > sid/testing too), and update documentation such as release-notes, > > > > This bullet point response confuses me - and then what? > > > > If I understand your position correctly, you don't want merged-/usr as > > an end-goal and you disagree with usrmerge transition as a hack. In > > order to achieve the result above without bypassing Debian processes, > > the formal method would to pass a GR overriding the tech-ctte minority. > > Is the only reason you haven't proposed that as a GR that you've already > > sunk too much energy into this? Or that you don't trust that process? > > My question is the reverse. If there is rough consensus that we as a > community *do* want to go forward with /usr unification in a way which > is compatible with all of the other distrubtions --- and Debian is > definitely in thet trailing edge here --- and a very small number of > dpkg developers are refusing to help resolve these issues, are they > entitled to perform a pocket veto on /usr unification? > > Simon and I have proposed technical paths forward which appear to be > sound, and I note that Guillem has not commented on them. Which is > why I haven't really participated in this thread in the last couple of > days; I've said my piece, and if folks who essentially want to > rollback the clock by several years refuse to engage, just simply > repeating my points doesn't seem to be a good use of electrons. > > But the question remains --- how do we as a community move forward? > Debian is made up of volunteers, so we can't *force* the dpkg > developers to do anything they don't want to do. So what then? > > Does someone need to create patches to dpkg which attempt to teach it > that /bin/foo and /usr/bin/foo are the same file, if there exists a > symlink from /bin to usr/bin? And then with some kind of process, > maybe with the blessing of the technical committee, upload it as an > NMU over the objections of the dpkg developers if they continue to > refuse to engage with solutions that proceed forward with > /usr-unification? That seems to be rather non-ideal from a community > perspective. But what's the alternative? Should a single DD have the > power to overturn a techical committee because they are the maintainer > of a highly important package? That doesn't seem great, either. > > > As I've said before, I've never been a fan of /usr-unification; I > don't hate it, but I've never thought it was worth it in and of > itself, other the "compatibility with the rest of the world argument". > I'm not a huge fan of systemd, either, although I never hated it as > much as some. But the entire Linux ecosystem has spoken, and so my > personal views aren't really important at this point. Part of living > in a community is realizing that one doesn't always get one's own way, > and subsuming one's individual wants for the greater good. > > So I repeat the question to the entire community --- what is to be > done? How do we move forward? > See the proposal here of guillem: https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg/Spec/MetadataTracking > > - Ted > >
