Re: /usr-merge status update + next steps

2023-08-28 Thread Luca Boccassi
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 at 10:21, Helmut Grohne wrote: > Let me also put this into numbers. Across all suites, we have around > 2200 binary packages shipping files in aliased locations. If you > disregard systemd units, we're left with 1030 packages. In other words, > more than half of the binary pack

Re: /usr-merge status update + next steps

2023-08-22 Thread Helmut Grohne
Control: forwarded -1 https://salsa.debian.org/debian/debhelper/-/merge_requests/108 Control: tags -1 + patch On Sun, Aug 20, 2023 at 11:19:56PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: > Related to that: > dh_installsystemd (and the old, deprecated dh_systemd_enable) currently only > consider systemd unit fi

Re: /usr-merge status update + next steps

2023-08-20 Thread Michael Biebl
Am 19.08.23 um 23:14 schrieb Helmut Grohne: ## dh_usrmerge I intend to add a new tool dh_usrmerge to debhelper (not yet implemented). Its purpose is performing the path canonicalization in binary packages. As long as the moratorium is in effect, this helper must not be used. It shall be possibl

Re: /usr-merge status update + next steps

2023-08-20 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi Helmut, On 19-08-2023 23:14, Helmut Grohne wrote: I recognize that this is quite a non-standard way to ask for a MBF. Does anyone object to me doing it in this way? I recall I said this before, but just in case. In my opinion (with my Release Team member hat on, but not on behalf of the t

/usr-merge status update + next steps

2023-08-19 Thread Helmut Grohne
Hi, Yeah, I know we have too many /usr-merge discussions. Still, there is reason to continue posting. My last summary/status was https://lists.debian.org/20230712133438.ga935...@subdivi.de from July 12th and I'm giving an update of what happened since then here and explain how I want to move forwa