Bug#930869: Don't release with buster
Control: severity -1 wishlist
On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 09:00:38PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 24.06.19 um 00:46 schrieb Ivo De Decker:
> > acpi-support depends on it, so removal is not possible. And even if it was, it
> > would probably be too late for that.
> >
> > Tagging this bug buster-ignore accordingly.
>
> Ok, I missed that. While this is unfortunate, I would still like to keep
> this bug report as RC, so users of pm-utils are properly notified that
> it is better to not use this package in buster.
But, as I repeatedly asked and you did not answer: WHY would it be better to
not use this package in buster? Could you please name a case where it's
harmful? Or even name a replacement that fits its use case and actually
works?
> Hopefully we can sort this out properly in buster+1.
If you demand that obsolete quirks are deleted, that can be done. But
that's in no way a bug of RC severity -- "wishlist" is appropriate unless
you can demonstrate a quirk that actually can cause serious damage.
And about the last part... after going out of my way to try to debug a
certain broken piece of software that's not my itch to scratch, I was
rewarded by my new expensive machine failing to power on, with main
remaining suspiction being invalid pokes specifically to power management.
Fortunately, after a few hours of random panicked actions such as reseating
all motherboard-mounted pieces of hardware and so on, it did finally start
up. Thus no -- there's no way I'm going to try that again.
If you wish for a clean-up... at this moment I can't spare any real tuits,
but we're in deep freeze anyway. _Then_ I, or someone else, can consider
looking at this _wishlist_ thing.
I obviously care mostly about my personal use cases -- none of machines I
own match any of the quirks -- thus, if per your advice as the former
maintainer, the quirks should go, then I have no means to test them anyway.
Not can I test support for Apple PMU (I don't know how many people have/care
about powerpc Macs).
But... as the quirks affect only old machines, which were already there by
the time you maintained the package, what's exactly the problem with them?
Especially one that would warrant urgent action. I can drop that if you
wish, but the package itself is needed to suspend _my_ hardware.
I'm concerned with breaking other people's toys, though...
Meow!
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Packager's rule #1: upstream _always_ screws something up. This
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ is true especially if you're packaging your own project.
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀
Reply to: