Re: usrmerge -- plan B?
- Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2018 21:38:04 +0500
- From: "Alexander E. Patrakov" <patrakov@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: usrmerge -- plan B?
On 11/24/18 8:51 PM, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Nov 21, Michael Stone <mstone@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
How many long-running production systems do you think people have run
usrmerge on? I'd guess close to zero, since there is no advantage
Actually I have quite a lot personally, with exactly zero problems.
On some of them I also enjoy advantages of merged-/usr, like having
multiple containers share the same /usr.
I agree with the argument in this thread that usrmerge should be either
Essential or not in Buster at all. I have no Debian systems in
production, but the company that I have a contract with has some Ubuntu
systems, and we are considering (as in: there is a successful PoC) the
use of OSTree for deployment of some production systems. OSTree folks
recommend merged /usr, so I do install usrmerge in the LXC container
that is being used as a "golden" tree for deployment. And it works quite
well for us with just a few extra moves and symlinks, and extlinux as
the boot loader (to work around removal of GRUB2-related files from the
So: my opinion is that I would prefer usrmerge in Essential in Buster,
for the benefit of people who use OSTree for deployment, and to reduce
divergence between Debian and Ubuntu plans.
Based on reading the other messages in this thread, I changed my
opinion. The new opinion is that any of the following outcomes is OK,
with no specific preference:
1. mandatory usrmerge in Buster
2. usrmerge available from somewhere for installation in Buster, but not
installed on buildds, and dpkg-buildpackage should refuse to build
anything if /usr is merged and the user does not say "please".
Alexander E. Patrakov