Re: Re: usrmerge -- plan B?
- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 11:32:22 +0100
- From: Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Re: usrmerge -- plan B?
On Wed, 2018-11-28 at 09:45 +0000, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 07:52:08AM +0500, Alexander E. Patrakov
> As long as there is one Debian Developer (or any other person who has the
> > right to upload binary packages) who has a merged /usr on his system used
> > for building packages, there is a risk of reintroducing the bug through his
> > package. Maybe we should somehow, in the short term, modify dpkg to add
> > something like "Tainted-By: usr-merge" control field to all binary packages
> > produced, if a package is built on a system with merged /usr (detected via
> > /bin being a symlink).
There are far more annoying problems that are caused by, for example,
building in a really outdated chroot or a chroot for the wrong
distribution and so on.
(Also the test is wrong, /bin can be a symlink without the system
having merged-/usr when the local admin just moved some files around to
a more preferred location...)
> we have .buildinfo files now which document the packages installed
> during build time. If usrmerge is installed it will be there.
usrmerge being installed doesn't tell you if a system has merged-/usr
or not. Newly installed systems will have merged-/usr, but no usrmerge
(as debootstrap creates the symlinks), or usrmerge could be removed
after the system has been converted (I did that for my systems).