Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Du, 21 mar 21, 13:01:07, Justin B Rye wrote: >> Robert Edmonds wrote: >>> During the bullseye release cycle the default /etc/unbound/unbound.conf >>> file was changed to use the newly introduced "include-toplevel:" >>> directive rather than the "include:" directive. This should probably be >>> mentioned in the bullseye release notes because it will break >>> configurations where the user added a clauseless config file fragment to >>> /etc/unbound/unbound.conf.d/. >>> >>> The text from /usr/share/doc/unbound/NEWS.Debian.gz about this change is >>> quoted below. >> >> For the Release Notes we ought to add some material: people reading >> the NEWS file can be assumed to have chosen to install unbound, but >> this version needs to start by making it clear what unbound is (and >> that if you haven't heard of it you don't need to read the technical >> details). Then after that we could squeeze things a bit: > > [snip two paragraphs] > >> Is that compressed too far? I was hoping to fit the word "robustness" >> somewhere. Maybe a mention of unbound-checkconf? > > How about squeezing even further and pointing to the NEWS file instead > (for those that have unbound installed, but not apt-listchanges).
The problem is, that way the information they need to implement a fix only arrives on their system as part of the process that breaks their resolver. That's less of a disaster than if the solution was only available online, but it still sounds annoying. (Putting it on a Wiki page that they can read before the upgrade would work, though.) -- JBR with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package