Bug#994275: Reverting breaking changes in debianutils
- To: Sebastian Ramacher <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Subject: Bug#994275: Reverting breaking changes in debianutils
- From: Simon McVittie <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2021 01:01:45 +0100
- Message-id: <YWN+6dwa281RHcPemail@example.com>
- Reply-to: Simon McVittie <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- In-reply-to: <163165898648.9199.7017392758124431278.reportbug@localhost>
- References: <163165898648.9199.7017392758124431278.reportbug@localhost> <163165898648.9199.7017392758124431278.reportbug@localhost>
On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 at 01:36:26 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> The release team has so far protected users of testing from the
> problem by blocking testing migration, but this is not a long-term
Adrian asked in #994275 for changes in several topics to be reverted:
- which(1) deprecation
- deprecation warnings on stderr
- management via alternatives
- possible future removal
- tempfile(1) removal
- installkernel(8) moving from /sbin to /usr/sbin
- run-parts(8) moving from /bin to /usr/bin
Which of those topics were your reason for adding a "block debianutils"
hint? Are there any of those topics whose resolution you would consider
to be a prerequisite for letting debianutils migrate to testing again?
The hint references #992399, which is related to tempfile(1), but
#992399 has been closed (via a merge with #992396, which was resolved by
debianutils adding a versioned Breaks on x11-common versions that needed
tempfile). Do the release team consider #992399 to have been adequately
resolved, or do you consider debianutils to still have a RC bug?
If debianutils reinstated tempfile(1) in bookworm, and removed it in
testing/unstable after the release of bookworm, would the release team
consider that to be an adequate transitional period?