Sat, 13 Nov 2021 17:24:51 -0500 - Steve Litt <slitt@???>:

> karl@??? said on Sat, 13 Nov 2021 22:28:02 +0100 (CET)
>

> >James Cloos:  
> >> >>>>> John Morris via Dng <dng@???> writes:    
> >> > So yes, it is time to eliminate /bin, /sbin and /lib.    
> >> the real result shod be eliminate /usr.    

> >
> >Guys, please don't push unnessary changes and policies
> >to the user. Let each and everyone be the master of his/her
> >own systems.
>
> Ex-actly!
>
> >
> >Just because debian wants to go that route doesn't mean
> >it has to be engraved as a policy for devuan.
>
> If it's possible to diverge from Debian's usr merge with Devuan's given
> (wo)manpower, I agree.

I totally agree.

> Starting somewhere in the 00's, Debian started
> making a lot of bad decisions.

Indeed.

> By the way, for the person who really wants the usr merge, wouldn't the
> conversion from an unmerged system consist of two mass copies and a few
> symlinks?
>
> SteveT

Unfortunately things seem to be rather more complex, as some people have
pointed out in this discussion:

Sat, 13 Nov 2021 23:29:16 +0100 - Martin Steigerwald <martin@???>:

> Steve Litt - 13.11.21, 23:24:51 CET:
> > By the way, for the person who really wants the usr merge, wouldn't
> > the conversion from an unmerged system consist of two mass copies and
> > a few symlinks?
>
> No.
>
> At least not if you like dpkg to be working fine. As I noted before, see:
>
> https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg/MergedUsr


My suspected is that the (totally unecessary) usr-merge decision made by
Debian will force (almost) all its derivatives to adapt even if they
despite.

This is because maintaining a derived distribution rejecting usr-merge
would become too complex and onerous...

Best regards
al3xu5

--
Say NO to copyright, patents, trademarks and industrial design
restrictions!
____________________________________________________________________________

Public GPG/PGP key: 8FC2 3121 2803 86E9 F7D8 B624 DA50 835B 2624 A36B