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