Re: tech-ctte: More specific advice regarding merged-/usr and implications of #978636
On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 at 20:03:14 +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> On Mon, 2022-07-18 at 17:53 +0200, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues
> > Also, what is the relationship between the usr-is-merged package and the
> > usrmerged package? Both were/are built by src:usrmerge but its changelog
> > doesn't indicate when or why the naming changed so I'm left a bit confused
> > about the relationship between these two packages. Since your deboootstrap
> > merge request changed from usrmerged to usr-is-merged I guess the latter is the
> > correct choice?
>
> It was renamed following a request on #debian-ftp while it was in NEW,
> as the feedback was that 'usrmerge' and 'usrmerged' were too similar
> and thus easily confused. The 'usrmerged' one can be disregarded and
> will be de-crufted.
It's unfortunate that when a package like usrmerge has more than one
version waiting in NEW, the two operations available to the ftp team seem
to be "reject all versions of usrmerge" and "accept all versions of
usrmerge": if the result of NEW review is that the new binary package
needs to be renamed, as it was in this case, then the ideal result would
have been to reject usrmerge/28 from the queue and immediately accept
usrmerge/29.
I agree that usrmerge and usrmerged are confusingly similar names, and
usr-is-merged is a lot more clearly different.
smcv
Reply to: