On 8/27/21 10:20 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
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?
Yes. I can't speak to the dpkg internals, but conceptually, this seems like the right thing to do.
Even if we eliminated usrmerge entirely, I'm not sure what's harmful about dpkg canonicalizing filenames. In fact, it seems very much like the right thing to do. So unless the patch is very invasive, I don't see why one would object to this change on its own.
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?
Yes.If the dpkg maintainer does not accept a reasonable patch, then this may need to be presented to the TC to overrule him, which requires a 3:1 TC majority. One might argue the existing TC decision implies this, but the least ambiguous procedural option would be to have the TC explicitly overrule the maintainer once a specific implementation is available.
It is my view that the usrunmess utility also needs to be dropped before the bookworm release. That quite clearly follows from the existing TC decision, which is that only the merged-usr layout is supported, so I don't think that needs further TC action. However, I think removing that utility should wait until such time as we have the other issues reasonably resolved.
Should a single DD have the power to overturn a techical committee because they are the maintainer of a highly important package?
No. This is settled in the Debian constitution. If a DD wishes to override the TC, they need to propose a GR.
-- Richard
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
