On Thu, 11 May 2023 21:16:34 +0900 Simon Richter <s...@debian.org> wrote: > Hi, > > On 5/11/23 10:59, Sean Whitton wrote: > > >> Dear ctte, please consider overruling the dpkg maintainer to include > >> the patch from #994388[1]. > > > Currently dpkg contains code to emit the merged-/usr warning, that's > > dead code on Debian, but which becomes active when packages from the > > Debian archive are copied unmodified into derivatives. > > The way I see it (but I'm not a dpkg maintainer), the current > implementation is correct, as dpkg does not support aliased directories, > but Debian has decided to use it in such an environment nonetheless. The > tech-ctte decision not to roll back usrmerge accepts responsibility for > this decision, so silencing the warning on Debian is correct, but no one > has accepted that responsibility for derived distributions. > > Any derived distribution can easily go on record and request inclusion > in the list of distributions where this warning is suppressed, by typing > the phrase "Yes, I understand that this is a bad idea." into an email > client.
The crux of the issue is that we are hearing how negatively affecting derivatives in any way, even purely theoretically, is a big no-no, in this very same thread and topic. Reaching out and asking for directions/help/whatever is not enough in that context. So it follows that it cannot be enough in this context either, and it must be fixed instead. Or alternatively, we can establish that a documentation/post-facto approach is enough for derivatives, and then that's valid for all changes and transitions. Either of these are valid approaches. What I cannot find acceptable is that some changes get a free pass, and some get roadblocks after roadblocks thrown at them. -- Kind regards, Luca Boccassi
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
