Re: Is an MBF and unblock for packages introducing new files in /bin or /sbin or /lib in Bookworm acceptable at this stage?

[Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>]

>>>>> "Luca" == Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> writes:

    Luca> Hello Release Team, If we were to do a MBF against packages
    Luca> that in _Bookworm_ have introduced new files in /bin, /sbin or
    Luca> /lib*, would you accept the consequent mass unblock request?
    Luca> I am asking beforehand as there's no point in going through
    Luca> the effort if you don't, the advantage is only if we can sort
    Luca> it before Bookworm ships, and the bugs would become invalid
    Luca> and be closed as soon as it does as per moratorium otherwise.

This sounds  like a really bad idea.
While technically this is consistent with the  TC's advice, what you are
proposing to do increases the chance that you're going to trigger the
dpkg disappearing file bug.

Consider:

* User installs version from testing with file in /bin
* Maintainer quickly moves the file to /usr/bin per your MBF
* Bookworm releases; user does not upgrade at this point
* Package reorganization; file moves between packages
* User upgrades; file disappears

I suspect the reason you want to make this MBF is that you believe it
will somehow make the transition easier if there are fewer files in /bin
or /usr/bin.
I don't think that's obvious to me from the debian-devel discussions,
and so i don't think there is a significant benefit in this MBF.
Without a significant benefit and with the risk of files disappearing
for people tracking testing/unstable, I think that this is a bad idea.