Henrique de Moraes Holschuh dixit: >On Sun, Jan 20, 2019, at 14:05, Thorsten Glaser wrote: >> How about starting a sort of transition to the split packages instead?= > >Looks like a sensible approach to me.
It’s a bit too “short” before the release, always has been. My other ideas, both the p-u and the “castling”, rely too much on that all things involved go smooth. I’d like to propose a new plan: * we still intend to do a rng-tools → rng-tools5 transition for bullseye but leave buster alone * we’ll just keep rng-tools (5.x) out of testing, and will later request package removal of src:rng-tools and the binary package (but (new) only AFTER the buster release) * I’ll request removal of rng-tools-debian from testing (and, therefore, buster), but keep it around in sid until we have a new solution (to not break existing users) * said new solution could be to either add all features needed to rng-tools5 or, well, keeping rng-tools-debian (the name’s correct as it’s the former Debian maintainer’s fork of rng-tools, but we can bikeshed that later) around * whatever we do, we’ll do it way after the buster release (so we will have had time to discuss it before implementing) but way before the bullseye release (so it will have had enough time to cook in testing/sid beforehand) * in bullseye, we will need to handle migration from - rng-tools (2.x) [from buster] - rng-tools (5.x) [from sid] - rng-tools5 [from buster/sid] - rng-tools-debian [from sid] but we don’t need to handle all of them the same way; details mostly depend on whether we manage to patch rng-tools5 enough so that we can migrate *all* of them to *one* destination package, handling all use cases; the configuration change needs to be in the release notes of course, but this way, we’ll have actually enough time to do that This most likely means that rng-tools5 people (upstream and packagers) need to consider adding enough rng-tools-debian functionality (more command line switches, and making them actually do what they used to do, and an /etc/default/ file). Is this agreeable? If so, I’ll go ahead requesting removal of rng-tools-debian from testing, and we’ll have to continue blocking rng-tools 5 from entering testing. The downside is that the fixes in rng-tools-debian won’t make it into rng-tools in buster, and that rng-tools-debian will be around for a while longer. But I’ve looked at popcon and *buntu and saw it’s already used by way more people than the two or three systems I installed it on myself, so we’ll do best doing a transition plan including it *anyway*, which won’t get worse if it sticks round for a while. Sorry for taking ~2 weeks for this answer, I’ve had the cold (and now caught conference flu at FOSDEM, no rest for me…), but I believe that even acting 2 weeks ago we would not have managed in time it *anything* went wrong, and the current status quo in testing is “good enough” (that is, not a regres‐ sion from stretch) for us to keep for a release longer. If one step in the transition had failed, we would have been left without rng-tools in buster at all, which had derailed any later transition plans and made users even angrier. bye, //mirabilos -- <cnuke> den AGP stecker anfeilen, damit er in den slot aufm 440BX board passt… oder netzteile, an die man auch den monitor angeschlossen hat und die dann für ein elektrisch aufgeladenes gehäuse gesorgt haben […] für lacher gut auf jeder LAN party │ <nvb> damals, als der pizzateig noch auf dem monior "gegangen" ist
