Re: DEP 17: Improve support for directory aliasing in dpkg
On Sat, 22 Apr 2023 at 11:50, Helmut Grohne <helmut@subdivi.de> wrote:
>
> Hi Luca,
>
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 03:29:33PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > After Bookworm ships I plan to propose a policy change to the CTTE and
> > policy maintainers to forbid shipping files in the legacy directories
> > altogether, followed by a debhelper change to adjust any stragglers
> > automatically at build time and a mass rebuild, plus MBF for the small
> > % that does not use dh and a piuparts test to stop migration for
> > anything that is uploaded and doesn't comply. That should bring the
> > matter to an end, without needing to modify dpkg.
>
> I agree with the goal of removing aliases by moving files to their
> canonical locations. However, I do not quite see us getting there in the
> way you see it, but maybe I am missing something. As long as dpkg does
> not understand the effects of aliasing, we cannot safely move those
> files and thus the file move moratorium will have to be kept in place.
> And while moving the files would bring the matter to an end, we cannot
> do so without either modifying dpkg or rolling back the transition and
> starting over. I hope that we all agree that rolling back would be too
> insane to even consider, but I fail to see how you safely move files
> without dpkg being changed. Can you elaborate on that aspect?
Moving files within _the same_ package is actually fine as far as I
know. It's moving between location _and_ packages within the same
upgrade that is problematic. The piuparts test I added is overzealous,
but it doesn't need to be.
> I'd also be interested on how you plan to move important files in
> essential packages. This is an aspect raised by Simon Richter and where
> I do not see an obvious answer yet.
Do you have a pointer? Not sure I follow what "important" files means
here, doesn't ring a bell.
Kind regards,
Luca Boccassi
Reply to: