On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 03:01:11PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Fri, Jan 05, 2024 at 09:17:52PM +0100, Paul Gevers wrote: > > On 05-01-2024 17:36, Rene Engelhard wrote: > > > Also a problem is that experimental also might already contain totally > > > unrelated updates like new upstream versions... > > > I share this worry. Have you thought about how to handle the cases where you > > don't have experimental to upload to? How big is this problem? > > > Another worry, how will you provide the required changes to the maintainers > > of the packages? Via BTS? For those working on salsa: MR? Both? Something > > else? Obviously we should not end in the situation that a new upload goes > > back to the old name (or are the ftp-masters so keen on this transition that > > that won't happen? But what about newer versions with the old name already > > in experimental, conform the former worry?). I've seen NMU's being ignored > > by subsequent uploads by the maintainer, even when they fixed RC issues > > which were then reintroduced. > > I would intend to provide diffs via the BTS. This remains the standard > policy for NMUs in Debian per the Developer's Reference, and as far as I > know has worked effectively for all such previous ABI transitions.
In the current situation, though, not having experimental available means that there's no opportunity for dumat to weigh in regarding usrmerge interactions, which seems problematic given Helmut's preliminary analysis. -- Colin Watson (he/him) [cjwat...@debian.org]
