On Tue, Mar 21 2023 at 09:06:41 PM +01:00:00 +01:00:00, Paul Gevers
<elb...@debian.org> wrote:
Hi Pirate,
Thanks for reaching out.
On 20-03-2023 16:44, Pirate Praveen wrote:
I request bookworm-ignore tags for these bugs (as such there is
no immediate breakage, just unmaintained upstreams for these
packages).
> yarnpkg: 980316,958686, 1002902, 980316
> node-har-validator: 1024575
> node-request: 956423
> node-request-capture-har: 1002901
As the packages in question are key packages, we can't easily remove
them. Hence adding a bookworm-ignore tag doesn't really change the
situation in bookworm in any way. Hence, the question is whether
fixing
it now and adding an exception is better or worse than letting the bug
ship in bookworm. If I understand correctly, than the required change
would mean a new complex package (corepack) which (again, if I
understand correctly) is considered also by you as inappropriate at
this
time. If you confirm my understanding, I agree that those bugs can be
marked bookworm-ignore (I already marked them as bookworm-can-defer,
which is less strong and less official).
We won't be able to complete corepack in a few weeks or months. So we
have to ship bookworm with these bugs and get this fixed in time for
trixie.
Paul
