On Sun, Jul 16, 2023 at 12:42:11PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> If there is somebody who's ignoring things, that would be yourself,
> given this change has been not only been explicitly requested, but even
> provided _BY_ the CTTE, as you would have easily found out if you
> actually went and
I want to echo what Simon said, please don't partake in commit
ping-pong, it is unbecoming of a Debian Developer, and not the correct
course of action if you disagree with something. It also reflects poorly
on the project, so please refrain from doing so, even if you don't agree
with how
On Sun, 2023-07-16 at 12:54 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 at 12:42:11 +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > In the meanwhile, I'll immediately revert the sabotage.
>
> Both of you, please don't turn this into an NMU war in the archive:
> that doesn't benefit anyone. I would have
On 2023-07-16, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 at 18:27:24 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
>> But, what matters here is the CTTE ruling in #1035831 -- for the time being,
>> packages must not move files between locations affected by the aliasing.
>
> If that happens in reality, then yes,
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 12:54:35 +0100 Simon McVittie
wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 at 12:42:11 +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > In the meanwhile, I'll immediately revert the sabotage.
>
> Both of you, please don't turn this into an NMU war in the archive:
> that doesn't benefit anyone. I would have
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 at 12:42:11 +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> In the meanwhile, I'll immediately revert the sabotage.
Both of you, please don't turn this into an NMU war in the archive:
that doesn't benefit anyone. I would have preferred it if Adam had not
immediately uploaded a 0-day revert, but
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 at 18:27:24 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> bluca's NMU on 2023-07-15 makes debootstrap produce chroots using the
> aliased-dirs scheme.
My intention in the MR that was included in the NMU[1] was to default to
merged-/usr chroots in all cases for trixie and up, but continue to
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 18:27:24 +0200 Adam Borowski
wrote:
> Package: debootstrap
> Version: 1.0.128+nmu3
> Severity: grave
>
> bluca's NMU on 2023-07-15 makes debootstrap produce chroots using the
> aliased-dirs scheme. While it's currently the default scheme for
non-buildd
> systems, it is both
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 at 18:27:24 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> But, what matters here is the CTTE ruling in #1035831 -- for the time being,
> packages must not move files between locations affected by the aliasing.
If that happens in reality, then yes, that's bad, and reverting the change
is a
Hi Adam,
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 18:27:24 +0200 Adam Borowski wrote:
Packages built in an usrmerged chroot place such files under /usr while
built without usrmerge into whatever place they were installed to -- which
is a direct breach of the ruling.
Packages stage their files in debian/tmp or
Package: debootstrap
Version: 1.0.128+nmu3
Severity: grave
bluca's NMU on 2023-07-15 makes debootstrap produce chroots using the
aliased-dirs scheme. While it's currently the default scheme for non-buildd
systems, it is both not supported by dpkg (with no solution in sight), but
is also likely
11 matches
Mail list logo
