Hi Simon,
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 05:19:06PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> If we want to make buildd chroots merged-/usr any time soon, then I
> think we need to say this class of bugs is RC for bookworm.
I fear there might be a logic trap here.
For a moment, let us assume perfection of this pl
On Tue, 17 Aug 2021, Sam Hartman wrote:
"Luca" == Luca Boccassi writes:
Luca> Wouldn't a pre-depends solve the ordering problem in this
Luca> case?
No.
At least it's really hard to prove that it does, we have a bad track
record of getting it wrong, and if it were to work in a
specific
On Wed, 2021-08-18 at 10:43 +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 8/18/21 12:21 AM, Luca Boccassi wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 at 20:17, Simon Richter wrote:
>
> > > I agree that it's likely the only thing we can do with the version of
> > > dpkg that we ship now, and that will have to h
Hi,
On 8/18/21 12:21 AM, Luca Boccassi wrote:
On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 at 20:17, Simon Richter wrote:
I agree that it's likely the only thing we can do with the version of
dpkg that we ship now, and that will have to handle the upgrade for any
users that move from one stable release to the next
> "Luca" == Luca Boccassi writes:
Luca> Wouldn't a pre-depends solve the ordering problem in this
Luca> case?
No.
At least it's really hard to prove that it does, we have a bad track
record of getting it wrong, and if it were to work in a
specific instance it would depend on implem
Simon,
Thanks so much for your comprehensive answer. It's a great summary
that I think would be really useful for those of us who are package
maintainers who don't have a strong position one way or another
vis-a-vis usrmerge vs merged-/usr-via-symlink-farms, but just want to
do what is best for o
On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 at 20:17, Simon Richter wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 8/17/21 8:02 PM, Simon McVittie wrote:
>
> > However, some people (most notably the dpkg maintainer, who has thought
> > about this more than most) argue that merged-/usr's "aliasing" symlinks
> > /bin -> usr/bin, etc. are unsupport
On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 at 15:08, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> > "Luca" == Luca Boccassi writes:
>
> Luca> On Tue, 2021-08-17 at 12:07 +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> Luca> If src:usrmerge is made transitively-essential, from that
> Luca> point onward it wouldn't matter if a package is n
Hi,
On 8/17/21 8:02 PM, Simon McVittie wrote:
However, some people (most notably the dpkg maintainer, who has thought
about this more than most) argue that merged-/usr's "aliasing" symlinks
/bin -> usr/bin, etc. are unsupportable, and the only correct way to
consolidate static files to be physi
On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 at 12:59:21 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > Such packages are already violating a Policy "should", because they're
> > not building reproducibly (and the reproducible-builds infra tests this
> > for testing and unstable).
>
> Do we have a dashboard for this so the list of which
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 05:19:06PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 at 08:08:15 -0600, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > In order to build packages that work on a non-usrmerge system, you need
> > a build chroot that is not usrmerge.
>
> Well. That's not 100% true: it's more accurate to say
On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 at 08:08:15 -0600, Sam Hartman wrote:
> In order to build packages that work on a non-usrmerge system, you need
> a build chroot that is not usrmerge.
Well. That's not 100% true: it's more accurate to say that when *some*
source packages are built in a merged-/usr chroot, the r
> "Luca" == Luca Boccassi writes:
Luca> On Tue, 2021-08-17 at 12:07 +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote:
Luca> If src:usrmerge is made transitively-essential, from that
Luca> point onward it wouldn't matter if a package is no longer
Luca> compatible with the legacy split-usr setup
13 matches
Mail list logo
