Hi all,

First of all, I don't like the idea of usr merge. It necessitates an
initramfs if /usr is mounted instead of just being off the root of the
root drive. And the old way was working: Why mess with success?

As you know, I use Void Linux on a daily basis, and Void has had usr
merge forever:

==========================================================
[slitt@mydesk flex]$ ls -ldF /bin
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 Jun 23 20:28 /bin -> usr/bin/
[slitt@mydesk flex]$ ls -ldF /sbin
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 Jun 23 20:28 /sbin -> usr/bin/
[slitt@mydesk flex]$ ls -ldF /lib
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 Jun 23 20:28 /lib -> usr/lib/
[slitt@mydesk flex]$
==========================================================

So I asked on the Voidlinux IRC channel why this is a problem for
Debian but not for Void and I got two distinct answers:

1) now, i'm no xbps guru but if i understand this correctly, the issue
is that with symlinks there isn't a one-to-one mapping between
filepaths and actual files anymore but xbps can handle that
just fine. But i can't be bothered to look into what the issue with
dpkg is, so take what i'm saying with a grain of salt

2) All packages in Void are build as "usr-merged" and therefore the
path in the package will match the path on the fs. I don't know how
xbps would fall apart if you would build them with a /bin path and
install them on a system with a /bin -> /usr/bin symlink.

If #1 is true, and the guy says it's a guess, a long long time ago dpkg
made the then credible assumption that each file had one and only one
name, and usr merge falsified this assumption, breaking things. If this
is true, shame on Debian for recklessly implementing usr merge before
modifying dpkg to function under usr merge.

#2 basically says that usr merge was never a controversial or political
thing in Void, so they simply updated the xbps packaging system to
match the usr merge, nobody cared, and the world kept turning.

Excepting Martin's problem with runit, I don't see this as a major
issue. It's Debian's problem to fix their conflict between usr merge
and dpkg. If their solution turns out to be telling us that we *must*
merge, that's not a horrible thing: I've been living with it for years
and it doesn't impact my life. As a matter of fact, if, when I got into
Linux, there were no /lib, /bin and /sbin, and later they mandated
those directories be separate, I would have disapproved.

The real risk I see here is that the poetterists, namely
FreeDesktop.Org, Redhat, IBM, Microsoft and the "systemd cabal" will
portray this dpkg problem as the reason we should all switch to
systemd-packaged or whatever, at which time it might be necessary to
leave all vestiges of Debian behind, but let's cross that bridge if and
when we get to it.


SteveT

Steve Litt

Autumn 2023 featured book: Rapid Learning for the 21st Century
http://www.troubleshooters.com/rl21