Hi Luca, Luca Boccassi, on 2023-05-22: > On Sun, 21 May 2023 at 20:31, Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> wrote: > > > > On Sun, 21 May 2023 at 20:29, Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org> wrote: > > > > > > Re: Luca Boccassi > > > > If we were to do a MBF against packages that in _Bookworm_ have > > > > introduced new files in /bin, /sbin or /lib*, would you accept the > > > > consequent mass unblock request? > > > > > > Fwiw, I would restrict that to packages that didn't have files in > > > these directories before. Telling a maintainer that they should > > > continue install foo.service to /lib/systemd, but the newly introduced > > > bar.service needs to got to /usr/lib/systemd seems like a lot of extra > > > work and asking for bugs to happen. > > > > Yes, this (the number of files mentioned) already excludes things that > > are installed by dh addons and so, such as unit files. > > Here's the list of affected packages for binaries: > > abpoa I happen to have abpoa on my radar, and its presence here is due to a screwup of mine. Fix is one patch away, assuming I guess that an exception to the moratorium will be granted to these particular situations (abpoa didn't exist in bullseye and prior, and I understand other affected packages in the list are more or less similar situations to avoid risks of triggering aliasing bugs during major upgrade): --- a/debian/install +++ b/debian/install @@ -1 +1 @@ -bin/abpoa* +bin/abpoa* /usr/bin About the timing, even from a maintainer's perspective, it is becoming short indeed. In any case, thanks for raising that problem! -- .''`. Étienne Mollier <emollier@debian.org> : :' : gpg: 8f91 b227 c7d6 f2b1 948c 8236 793c f67e 8f0d 11da `. `' sent from /dev/pts/1, please excuse my verbosity `- on air: Black Bonzo - The Well
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature