On Mar 01, Russ Allbery wrote:
> The situation with refcounting seems much less fragile than the situation
> without refcounting to me.
I totally agree.
Also, why does refcounting have to be "perfect"?
What would break if it did not actually check that the two files
provided by the same package
On Mar 04, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Also, why does refcounting have to be "perfect"?
> > What would break if it did not actually check that the two files
> > provided by the same package for different architectures are identical?
> Everything that can go wrong when splitting packages. You
On Aug 29, Guillem Jover wrote:
> I thought this was already the consensus, and the only dissenting
> opinion was that the base system should still be using gzip so that
> foreign non-Debian systems can unpack it w/o requiring to build or
> install xz beforehand.
I am not sure if there was a cons
On Jan 04, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> Checking wether a slave link is the same as the master link because of
> usrmerge sounds a bit too specific to me to add to a low-level tool
> like update-alternatives. It's like asking `ln -s file file` to do
> nothing instead of returning an error.
I agree tha
Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.10.9
Severity: wishlist
Please use this trivial shell script instead:
#!/bin/sh -e
exec /bin/date --rfc-822
Package: dpkg
Version: 1.10.9
Severity: wishlist
doogie: do you remember my problem with dpkg killing the news spool?
md: vaguely
doogie: well... the problem was just that /var/spool/news was a symlink to
another directory, so dpkg could removed it
md: oh, then admin error
md: of course
On Apr 27, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> Our major use case is cloud initial setup, image building, CI, buildds, all
> of which do not require any syncs, and can safely use eatmydata, for example;
> hence the enormous speed up.
I do not believe that it would be wise to optimize our packaging syste
On May 07, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> > block 839046 with 134758
> Bug #839046 [debootstrap] debootstrap: enable --merged-usr by default
> Bug #839162 [debootstrap] Enabled merged-/usr by default
I totally disagree that this is in any way a blocking issue: it is at
best cosmetical since
On Aug 01, Guillem Jover wrote:
> I don't know whether someone is continuously checking for this kind of
> problem within Debian, besides the usual checks that Ralf Treinen is
I am: there is a script to do this in the usrmerge package.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mar 29, Guillem Jover wrote:
> While it's true that we might need to use such pathnames in debian/rules
> or debhelper fragment files (which some might consider ugly), IMO that
> has always felt like a sign that there's something missing in our
> packaging helpers/tools.
If you believe this th
On May 17, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> Given the feedback, I am convinced that changing PT_INTERP is a stupid
> idea regardless of whether it is technically feasible. There must be a
> better way. Let's step back a bit.
Me too, I was never persuaded.
> 4. Change the bootstrap protocol. In essence, t
On Jun 08, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> In the same spirit, I'd like to throw an idea... could we decide that
> base-files is the first package to be configured as part of the bootstrap
> protocol and change base-files maintainer's scripts into statically linked
> executables so that they can work ev
On Jun 09, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> > as we all know every Debian maintainer can veto any systemic changes
> > that they do not like.
> I don't think qusr-merge would not have happened if this was true. And
> I believe you know that very well.
Actually merging /usr happened in a suboptimal way becau
13 matches
Mail list logo
