Le 02/07/2019 à 00:06, Cyril Brulebois a écrit : >> (There was also a merge request based on this patch [2] which didn't >> receive any answer) > > Merge request, MR. > > So you're pointing out exactly what I was referring to. Hum. I'm disappointed in myself. >> Please enlighten me (I'm not being ironic here, this is a legitimate >> question, I really don't understand how releasing Buster with a partly >> broken apt-setup is preferable to merging a patch which is admittedly >> not tested by a lot of people, but is so simple that it's very >> unlikely to fail, especially when 60local nearly **always** fail >> without a fix). > > Because it makes no sense to be making changes until the very last > minute. Especially for a highly specific use case where one would expect > advanced users to be able to find the relevant bug report(s). Well, I wasn't able to, when I first submitted the duplicate bug report (#929911). Keep in mind that the error in the installer syslog is very cryptic: "apt-setup: warning: /usr/lib/apt-setup/generators/60local returned error code 255; discarding output" It's really not obvious that it's caused by the absence of gnupg, I didn't get it until you closed the duplicate and pointed me to #928931. Note that, before filling the bug report, I briefly searched through the current d-i bugs; I don't remember the patterns I used, but I didn't find this one (although I admit I find it weird that I didn't search for "local" or "apt-setup"; that being said, looking at the time of my e-mail, I was probably a bit tired after a long night of work). > If you personally don't mind, you may want to just trust us to make the > right call. Hypothetical users that haven't been testing release > candidates and haven't noticed the issue can surely 1) find bug reports > when they run into this issue; 2) apply a workaround; 3) or wait until > 10.1 is released. Right. My apologies. Regards, -- Raphaël Halimi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature