On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 at 01:36:26 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > The release team has so far protected users of testing from the > problem by blocking testing migration, but this is not a long-term > solution.
Adrian asked in #994275 for changes in several topics to be reverted: - which(1) deprecation - deprecation warnings on stderr - management via alternatives - possible future removal - tempfile(1) removal - installkernel(8) moving from /sbin to /usr/sbin - run-parts(8) moving from /bin to /usr/bin Which of those topics were your reason for adding a "block debianutils" hint? Are there any of those topics whose resolution you would consider to be a prerequisite for letting debianutils migrate to testing again? The hint references #992399, which is related to tempfile(1), but #992399 has been closed (via a merge with #992396, which was resolved by debianutils adding a versioned Breaks on x11-common versions that needed tempfile). Do the release team consider #992399 to have been adequately resolved, or do you consider debianutils to still have a RC bug? If debianutils reinstated tempfile(1) in bookworm, and removed it in testing/unstable after the release of bookworm, would the release team consider that to be an adequate transitional period? Thanks, smcv