Bug#484333: assigning to tech ctte (Re: status of this bug)
[ Please don't drop me from CC. The BTS doesn't automaticaly forward
mail to submitter. ]
On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 01:07:29PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Jun 2008, Robert Millan wrote:
> > On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 01:25:25PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > I think this shows clearly there's an unresolved transition here.
> > > I understand bash-completion shouldn't be Essential, but the
> > > process for moving it out isn't being done properly. It's not
> > > acceptable that end users get this functionality silently disabled
> > > without any obvious explanation (they might not even know which
> > > package provides it, or how).
>
> The release notes can trivially deal with this by suggesting (as they
> currently do!) that users use aptitude, which even in etch, handles
> Recommends: properly. They can also mention this specific problem, and
> handle the general class of problems where packages have been demoted
> to Recommends and/or split.
Notice that according to popcon less than 24% of users run aptitude
(18699 / 78518). I don't see how suggesting use of aptitude in the
release notes will bring that close to 100%; in fact I doubt it would
have any significant impact (but it doesn't hurt to do it anyway, IMHO).
Besides, we're assuming that aptitude is a suitable replacement for apt
in all situations, which may not necessarily be so. If you're really
confident that it is, to be consistent you should IMO propose that apt
becomes a dummy dependency on aptitude instead.
> Making bash-completion a dependency of bash obviates one of the
> important advantages of splitting out bash-completion: the ability to
> not have bash-completion installed.
That would be if the dependency were to last indefinitely. The ability to
not have bash-completion installed was (AFAICT) the whole point of the
package split. My concern is simply that no transition path has been
contemplated.
As a result the burden of figuring out why hitting TAB misteriusly stopped
working is put on the majority of users, just so that a minority doesn't
have to wait untill the transition is complete to free 216 kiB from
their disk.
> I suggest reassigning this bug to release notes with the following
> suggested verbiage:
>
> If you use apt-get to upgrade to lenny, you should first upgrade apt
> to the version in lenny, and then complete the upgrade to lenny
> using that version. The version of apt in lenny properly handles
> packages which have been split, with significant features only
> Recommended: by the unsplit packages.
Looks fine to me, but please clone instead of reassigning.
--
Robert Millan
<GPLv2> I know my rights; I want my phone call!
<DRM> What good is a phone call… if you are unable to speak?
(as seen on /.)
Reply to: