That merged-usr is mandatory is RC

Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

That merged-usr is mandatory is RC

Ian Jackson-2
Control: severity -1 serious

In #923091, Guillem (with dpkg maintainer hat on) asks for a
base-installer option to allow installing buster without merged-usr.

Guillem filed the bug as `wishlist' but given the controversy it seems
to me that it should be RC if for no other reasons than social
cohesion.

CCing the TC FYI (they have already been involved in merged-usr
debates via #914897) and the release team, in case they have an
opinion.  FAOD I am not a maintainer of base-files but AFAICT the
base-files maintainer has not expressed an opinion about severity.

Ian.

--
Ian Jackson <[hidden email]>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: That merged-usr is mandatory is RC

Ian Jackson-2
(sending this because I got the release team address wrong)

Ian Jackson writes ("That merged-usr is mandatory is RC"):

> Control: severity -1 serious
>
> In #923091, Guillem (with dpkg maintainer hat on) asks for a
> base-installer option to allow installing buster without merged-usr.
>
> Guillem filed the bug as `wishlist' but given the controversy it seems
> to me that it should be RC if for no other reasons than social
> cohesion.
>
> CCing the TC FYI (they have already been involved in merged-usr
> debates via #914897) and the release team, in case they have an
> opinion.  FAOD I am not a maintainer of base-files but AFAICT the
> base-files maintainer has not expressed an opinion about severity.

--
Ian Jackson <[hidden email]>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: That merged-usr is mandatory is RC

Sam Hartman-3
>>>>> "Ian" == Ian Jackson <[hidden email]> writes:

    Ian> (sending this because I got the release team address wrong) Ian
    Ian> Jackson writes ("That merged-usr is mandatory is RC"):
    >> Control: severity -1 serious
    >>
    >> In #923091, Guillem (with dpkg maintainer hat on) asks for a
    >> base-installer option to allow installing buster without
    >> merged-usr.
    >>
    >> Guillem filed the bug as `wishlist' but given the controversy it
    >> seems to me that it should be RC if for no other reasons than
    >> social cohesion.
    >>
    >> CCing the TC FYI (they have already been involved in merged-usr
    >> debates via #914897) and the release team, in case they have an
    >> opinion.  FAOD I am not a maintainer of base-files but AFAICT the
    >> base-files maintainer has not expressed an opinion about
    >> severity.

I've been debating doing this, but continue to believe that it's
important after several days of pondering.  So, per constitution 5.1
(2), I'd like to explicitly lend support to the idea that it would be
really good if we provide our users a way to install buster without
merged /usr.  I think that if we do not do so now, we need to be open to
the possibility that if users are stymied in doing their work, we will
need to do so in a buster point release even if we would not normally
add something some might consider a feature in a point release.

I'm not speaking to whether I think it should be RC or even whether an
expert only option is good enough.
I am simply saying that with my DPL hat on, I think this issue is
important enough it deserves real consideration.


I think that the TC's ruling and ongoing experience suggests we have
carefully considered how we want to approach merged /usr for our own
internal work developing Debian and come to a position that at least for
the moment seems to be working.

What I'm most concerned about is people who use Debian to develop
software they plan to use on Debian but who are not part of Debian.
Examples of this include people within organizations who build programs
to distribute within their organization.  People who build upstream
programs using configure from source.  That sort of thing.

These people may not use packages.  These people may not use chroots.

They are our users; they are our priority.  Even if we believe using
chroots or containers would be better for them, I don't think we should
force people into changing their build processes.


I don't think we have a good idea how big the impact will be for these
users, and so, I think we should be conservative.

If we don't choose to be conservative, I think we should be extra
willing to revisit our decision if we find we are wrong.

Again, all I'm saying is that I think this issue is important enough to
consider seriously.  I am not in a position to balance this issue
against other things before us.
I'm speaking as the DPL because I'm trying to consider something that is
a project level concern.  However, this statement has no actual force as
clearly spelled out in the constitution.
I'm speaking in the hopes of getting people to take a moment, think
about this issue and come to their own conclusions.


--Sam

signature.asc (497 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bug#923091: That merged-usr is mandatory is RC

Colin Watson
On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 07:22:08AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:

> >>>>> "Ian" == Ian Jackson <[hidden email]> writes:
>
>     Ian> (sending this because I got the release team address wrong) Ian
>     Ian> Jackson writes ("That merged-usr is mandatory is RC"):
>     >> In #923091, Guillem (with dpkg maintainer hat on) asks for a
>     >> base-installer option to allow installing buster without
>     >> merged-usr.
>     >>
>     >> Guillem filed the bug as `wishlist' but given the controversy it
>     >> seems to me that it should be RC if for no other reasons than
>     >> social cohesion.
>     >>
>     >> CCing the TC FYI (they have already been involved in merged-usr
>     >> debates via #914897) and the release team, in case they have an
>     >> opinion.  FAOD I am not a maintainer of base-files but AFAICT the
>     >> base-files maintainer has not expressed an opinion about
>     >> severity.
>
> I've been debating doing this, but continue to believe that it's
> important after several days of pondering.  So, per constitution 5.1
> (2), I'd like to explicitly lend support to the idea that it would be
> really good if we provide our users a way to install buster without
> merged /usr.  I think that if we do not do so now, we need to be open to
> the possibility that if users are stymied in doing their work, we will
> need to do so in a buster point release even if we would not normally
> add something some might consider a feature in a point release.
>
> I'm not speaking to whether I think it should be RC or even whether an
> expert only option is good enough.
> I am simply saying that with my DPL hat on, I think this issue is
> important enough it deserves real consideration.

I've posted
https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/base-installer/merge_requests/1
to add a low-priority question for this, following Cyril's advice in
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=923091#10.  The text
may not be quite perfect, but I think it's a decent start.

I've deliberately avoided changing the default behaviour in this patch:
its effect is simply to make the behaviour configurable either via
expert mode or using preseeding (by setting base-installer/usrmerge to
false).  This is to maximise the chance of being able to get this change
into buster with a minimum of controversy of its own.  It is of course
simple to change the default behaviour and/or how prominently the
question is presented by way of follow-up changes, if the project so
chooses.

--
Colin Watson                                       [[hidden email]]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: That merged-usr is mandatory is RC

Sam Hartman-3
In reply to this post by Sam Hartman-3
>>>>> "Ivo" == Ivo De Decker <[hidden email]> writes:

    Ivo> Hi, Given that there is still discussion about the impact of
    Ivo> merged /usr at this very late point of the freeze, I think
    Ivo> having merged /usr by default for new installations should be
    Ivo> reconsidered.

What discussion are you seeing other than this discussion here?
Things seem to have been fairly quiet on the merged /usr front since the
 TC decision.

What am I missing?