[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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



Luca Boccassi, on 2023-05-22:
> On Mon, 22 May 2023 at 20:34, Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> wrote:
> >
> > >>>>> "Luca" == Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> writes:
> >
> >     Luca> 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
> >
> >     Luca> What "package reorganization" would that be? Are you aware of
> >     Luca> any such thing happening in the next couple of weeks before
> >     Luca> release?
> >
> > Who said anything about next couple of weeks.  This affects testing and
> > unstable users *after the release*.  It is my experience of Debian that
> > outside of freezes package reorganizations happen regularly.
> 
> So what you are worried is the combination of a testing installation
> from~one year ago, that is otherwise never touched for say another
> year, and also that has one of those 23 packages installed in the old
> version, and also that same package of those 23 gets rearranged? That
> seems vanishingly unlikely,

Against all odds, I can see very well this happening, so I guess
it shouldn't hurt to flag somehow packages having had to proceed
per the MBF.  Big "warning" comments at a few strategic points
in d/control and install files might probably be a bare minimum,
so team fellows or future self won't trip on the carpet when
tempted to reorganize files.

-- 
  .''`.  Étienne Mollier <emollier@debian.org>
 : :' :  gpg: 8f91 b227 c7d6 f2b1 948c  8236 793c f67e 8f0d 11da
 `. `'   sent from /dev/tty1, please excuse my verbosity
   `-    on air: The Flower Kings - Bavarian Skies

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: