On Fri, 26 May 2023 at 08:39, Matthew Vernon <matt...@debian.org> wrote:
> Hi,
> On 26/05/2023 07:03, Ansgar wrote:
> > On Wed, 2023-05-10 at 14:36 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> Ansgar <ans...@43-1.org> writes:
> >>> Debian going out of its way to tell derivative users to switch back from
> >>> merged-/usr to split-/usr is the *opposite* of trying to make things as
> >>> smooth for them as possible.
> >>
> >> Yes, I agree with that part and I think I objected to that at the time.
> >> Nonetheless, one bad decision doesn't mean that it is Debian policy that
> >> we don't care about derivatives or their users.  I think we made a mistake
> >> there which is not in alignment with our ideals or our goals.  We should
> >> try to reverse that mistake, not double down on it.
> >
> > My impression is that the tech-ctte disagrees on this point and would
> > not want to reverse the mistake, but double down on it (in your words).
> Your impression is incorrect. And assigning motivations to other parties
> during contentious discussions should be done with care if at all.
> Consider: it is consistent to believe that it would have been better for
> dpkg not to have had that warning added (quite some time ago now), but
> that by now most derivatives that care will likely have patched it out
> again (mitigating the harm); and if the current work on dpkg is allowed
> to run its course then the warning will probably go away anyway.

That assumes all derivatives track unstable/testing and have taken
action, but it is possible for derivatives to track stable only, and
those would be broken.

Kind regards,
Luca Boccassi

Reply via email to