On Fri, 8 Sept 2023 at 00:37, gregor herrmann <gre...@debian.org> wrote: > > On Thu, 07 Sep 2023 21:28:15 +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > > Yes, that is fine by me, as explained in later replies my main > > intention is to fix the issue that some wording is being used to > > reintroduce things that should not be reintroduced > > If I understand you correctly, "Reintroduc[ing] things that should not be > reintroduced" means not acting on bug reports where someone says > "Please change #!/usr/bin/sh back to #!/bin/sh". > > If I'm understanding the technical question correctly, "#!/bin/sh" > works for both merged-/usr and split-/usr, while "#!/usr/bin/sh" works > only for merged-/usr and breaks for split-/usr. > > Now, how to handle this situation? In my naïve point of view and a > bit late at night I see two options for maintainers. They can say …
The entire point of the decision that applies since bookworm is that there is only one supported form. That's not an accident, it is the entire point of the whole thing. As in, there is no such thing as "breaks split-/usr" because split-usr is no longer a thing that exists in Debian stable/backports/testing/unstable/experimental. > I'm a bit sad that many discussions in Debian (like this one) turn > into the "my way or the highway" lane, and I'd rather see a way of > cooperation which gives more leeway to others and take small extra > steps to accomodate minorities, when it doesn't have any actual cost. And I am more than a bit sad that sensible, clear-cut, binding and already-implemented decisions taken by our constitutional bodies get constantly second-guessed and belittled because of an irrational attachment to inconsequential accidents of history. But what can we do, we'll just have to be sad together, I guess. Aside from that, in the future please avoid using the word 'minorities' when talking about silly things such as liking or disliking symlinks, as in common English it is used to refer to much more serious matters.
