On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 18:04:14 +0000 Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> wrote: > On Fri, 2022-03-25 at 11:32 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > 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? > > Sorry, I don't know anything more than what I have shared - it was > linked and briefly discussed by user 'uau' on #debian-devel this > afternoon. I just happened to be online, noticed it and asked for > permission to share it here, which was granted. I do not know this > user, and I do not know if this patch has been shared or discussed > elsewhere. The author of the patch today on IRC confirmed that the patch is under the same license as dpkg (GPL2+), and when asked if they plan to push it forward, there was no answer. So the license is clear if somebody else wants to take it forward. Also worth noting that a couple of days ago, the author wrote on #debian-devel that some time ago the patch was presented to the dpkg maintainer, who rejected it with an answer along the lines of the usual "usrmerge is broken by design", with no further comment. So, what is the next step? Will the those on this thread who asserted they think a correct patch would be accepted without issues try and take it forward themselves? -- Kind regards, Luca Boccassi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part