Re: Is an MBF and unblock for packages introducing new files in /bin or /sbin or /lib in Bookworm acceptable at this stage?
On Mon, 22 May 2023 at 20:22, Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> wrote:
>
> >>>>> "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
What "package reorganization" would that be? Are you aware of any such
thing happening in the next couple of weeks before release?
> 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.
No, the main reason is that Helmut asked for this. And the ask makes
sense: it's something that should have been part of the TC guidance,
introducing new files in the wrong locations makes little sense.
Kind regards,
Luca Boccassi
Reply to: