Luca Boccassi dijo [Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 02:28:12PM +0000]: > I am part of that group, and that is definitely _not_ why I wouldn't > touch dpkg with a barge pole as things stand (and have stood for > years). You are making a gigantic leap with that assumption, not sure > what you base it on. As a downstream and upstream maintainer in several > large projects I fix things that don't impact me all the time, all over > the place. > > But anyway, it turns out it's all moot because - drum roll - there is a > patch: > > https://0x0.st/oNFG.diff > > This was shared just now on #debian-devel IRC by user 'uau', linked > here with explicit permission. > > So it looks like you, Russ and others who chimed in this thread should > now be in a position to test your theory that a missing patch was the > only issue. Care to take it forward? Wow, this is a positive turn of events! Do you happen to have more information as to the identity of the submitter? We should be able of properly granting attribution... The patch seems sane from a first, very much 10000m-point-of-view. Of course, it is very situation-specific and not generalized for following any unexpected symlinks in the directory hierarchy, but I do not expect that to be an issue (as we are talking about a very specific migration here). I am absolutely unfamiliar with dpkg internals and there are some bits that jump to my eye, but I do not think there is much use in me discussing very-minor things that should be obvious to people who are actually involved with dpkg. Has this diff been shared with Guillem, or included in any relevant bug report?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature