Re: Is an MBF and unblock for packages introducing new files in /bin or /sbin or /lib in Bookworm acceptable at this stage?
>>>>> "Luca" == Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> writes:
Luca> On Mon, 22 May 2023 at 20:22, Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> "Luca" == Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> writes:
>>
Luca> Hello Release Team, If we were to do a MBF against packages
Luca> that in _Bookworm_ have introduced new files in /bin, /sbin or
Luca> /lib*, would you accept the consequent mass unblock request?
Luca> I am asking beforehand as there's no point in going through
Luca> the effort if you don't, the advantage is only if we can sort
Luca> it before Bookworm ships, and the bugs would become invalid
Luca> and be closed as soon as it does as per moratorium otherwise.
>>
>> This sounds like a really bad idea. While technically this is
>> consistent with the TC's advice, what you are proposing to do
>> increases the chance that you're going to trigger the dpkg
>> disappearing file bug.
>>
>> Consider:
>>
>> * User installs version from testing with file in /bin *
>> Maintainer quickly moves the file to /usr/bin per your MBF *
>> Bookworm releases; user does not upgrade at this point * Package
>> reorganization; file moves between packages * User upgrades; file
>> disappears
Luca> What "package reorganization" would that be? Are you aware of
Luca> any such thing happening in the next couple of weeks before
Luca> release?
Who said anything about next couple of weeks. This affects testing and
unstable users *after the release*. It is my experience of Debian that
outside of freezes package reorganizations happen regularly.
I think your plan is safe for stable users if we actually find a
solution to canonicalize paths during the next cycle. I do not think
your plan is safe for people who track testing, and for me there's not
enough benefit to justify breaking testing.
Reply to: