Your message dated Sat, 27 Feb 2021 22:08:02 +0100
with message-id <0ade5d3d-221b-d57f-0571-683c353a0...@debian.org>
and subject line Committed release-notes changes
has caused the Debian Bug report #981582,
regarding release-notes: bullseye to be the last release to support non-merged
/usr layout
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
981582: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=981582
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: release-notes
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-c...@lists.debian.org
> Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2020 14:16:58 +0100
> From: Ansgar <ans...@debian.org>
> To: sub...@bugs.debian.org
> Subject: move to merged-usr-only?
> User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.1-2
>
> Package: tech-ctte
> X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-de...@lists.debian.org
>
> Hi,
>
> as suggested in [1], I would like to see Debian to move to support
> only the merged-usr filesystem layout. This would simplfy things for
> the future and also address the problem with installing files under
> aliased trees that dpkg has to do for both variants to be supported.
>
> merged-usr has been the default for new installations since the last
> release and (as far as I am aware) no world-breaking bugs have
> happened since; some environments such as buildd chroots still do not
> use merged-usr.
>
> I would like to ask the technical committee to decide whether we want
> to move to merged-usr-only. It seems to be a case of overlapping
> jurisdiction (6.1.2 in the constitution).
>
> I'm not asking the committee to decide on a concrete technical
> implementation for this. Obviously we would need to also implement a
> migration path for legacy installations for a move to merged-usr-only
> to be implemented. This also isn't relevant for Debian 11 (bullseye),
> but I would like to have enough time in the Debian 12 (bookworm)
> cycle.
>
> Ansgar
>
> [1]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2020/11/#00232
> continued in December:
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2020/12/#00386
> Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2021 10:13:11 -0700
> From: Sean Whitton <spwhit...@spwhitton.name>
> To: 978636-d...@bugs.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Bug#978636: move to merged-usr-only?
>
> Hello,
>
> On Mon 25 Jan 2021 at 11:45AM -07, Sean Whitton wrote:
>
> > I call for votes on the following ballot to resolve #978636. The voting
> > period starts immediately and lasts for up to one week, or until the
> > outcome is no longer in doubt (ยง6.3.1).
>
> The vote has concluded.
>
> Marga, David, Niko, Gunnar, Simon, Elana and myself all voted: YFN.
>
> Therefore:
>
> The Technical Committee resolves that Debian 'bookworm' should
> support only the merged-usr root filesystem layout, dropping support
> for the non-merged-usr layout.
>
> Until after the release of 'bullseye', any implementation of this
> resolution must be done in the 'experimental' distribution, or
> otherwise kept out of the critical paths for the release of
> 'bullseye'.
>
> --
> Sean Whitton
This should probably be documented in the Release Notes for bullseye (as
the last release to support the non-merged /usr layout).
Kind regards,
Andrei
--
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
These bugs have been fixed, thanks for your contribution.
Paul
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--- End Message ---
