On Sun, 11 Jun 2023 at 19:07, Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> wrote: > > Luca Boccassi <bl...@debian.org> writes: > > On Sun, 11 Jun 2023 at 18:06, Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> wrote: > > >> On the other, related topic, I've also been somewhat confused in this > >> discussion why it seems like there's a long-term goal to not have any > >> Debian package ship the /bin and /lib symlinks. I would assume we > >> would keep those symlinks forever, and thus will always be shipping > >> them in a package from now on (once we get to a place where it's safe > >> to ship them in a package). In the long term, that seems like the most > >> efficient way to prevent them from being removed, and also just seems > >> obviously correct semantically. > > > In the long term, there are two camps: those who would like to ship > > everything as package content (ie: top level symlinks in data.tar of > > some package, probably base-files) and those who would like packages > > to exclusively ship files under the vendor trees (/usr and optionally > > /etc) and let image builders set up required mount points, symlinks, > > and so on. > > Ah. Well, let me register my (preliminary, rebuttable) opposition to that > second strategy in advance to hopefully make it clear well before it > becomes an issue that there is no current project consensus to go that > route and we need an actual design discussion (hopefully this time with > considerably more attention paid to details) before starting down that > path, if we do. > > (Now is not the time for that discussion; please don't try to convince me > that I'm wrong at the moment. I'm only asking that people remember that > this is not something we have all agreed upon.)
No need to worry, as I mentioned there are two camps, as it's clear and obvious that there is no consensus one way or the other. There's loads more to do that is more useful and more urgent before it even gets down to this, as far as I'm concerned. Kind regards, Luca Boccassi
