Control: tags -1 wontfix Hi, On 08-04-2021 09:54, Christian Kastner wrote: > On 01.04.21 10:49, Raphael Hertzog wrote: >> Shipping bullseye without a core system administration tool like ansible >> is not something that we should do. Our users are the clear losers of this >> situation (and thus Debian as a whole).> >> Graham, can you please reconsider your position in #984557? Maybe have >> some broader discussion within the release team on whether an exception >> is to be made? >> >> I know exceptions are the doors to more arbitrary unblock requests but >> in general I have the feeling that we are too strict with such requests. > I would also greatly appreciate if a alternative solutions could be > discussed. > > Mistakes have been made and the policy is clear on the consequences. > However, from a user's perspective, strictly adhering to policy here > would appear to have an even bigger downside, in the sense that a 2.10.x > ansible of at least certain quality would be better than no ansible. > > If there is room for discussion and if there is any way that I can help > with this effort (especially with testing), please let me know. There's a way. ansible is not a key package, so, with passing (non-trivial) autopkgtest and src:ansible-base merged into src:ansible you have a way to carry this into bullseye. Yes, not conforming our freeze policy, but we won't block you. However, we *also* set freeze rules to make the release process manageable for the release team. ansible clearly missed to follow the rules. Making an exception is opening the doors for much more request for an exception that we just can't handle appropriately. We'll not act on this RM now as there's already the autoremoval process in place for bug 983140 which ensure that maintainers of reverse dependencies are warned and can help out if they want. Can we please stop this discussion? It's draining our energy. Paul
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature