ed-usr systems (revisited) (was: Re:
DEP 17: Improve support for directory aliasing in dpkg)
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem for
On 26/05/2023 09:24, Luca Boccassi wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2023 at 08:39, Matthew Vernon wrote:
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
On Fri, 26 May 2023 at 08:39, Matthew Vernon wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 26/05/2023 07:03, Ansgar wrote:
> > On Wed, 2023-05-10 at 14:36 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> Ansgar writes:
> >>> Debian going out of its way to tell derivative users to switch back from
> >>> merged-/usr to split-/usr is the
On Fri, 2023-05-26 at 08:39 +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> > So let me summarize Debian's "official" position as I understand it: we
> > do *NOT* care how dpkg's recommendations will break derivative
> > installations at all; if systems become unbootable, cause data loss,
> > ... now or in the
Hi,
On 26/05/2023 07:03, Ansgar wrote:
On Wed, 2023-05-10 at 14:36 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Ansgar 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
Hi Russ,
On Wed, 2023-05-10 at 14:36 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ansgar 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
On Sun, 21 May 2023 at 15:51, Ansgar wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2023-05-21 at 16:25 +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> > On a process level, I think I miss attempts to resolve this with the
> > dpkg maintainer in a constructive way.
>
> The patch was already suggested to the dpkg maintainer and rejected.
>
>
On Sun, 2023-05-21 at 16:25 +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> On a process level, I think I miss attempts to resolve this with the
> dpkg maintainer in a constructive way.
The patch was already suggested to the dpkg maintainer and rejected.
> Does anyone mind just closing the bug?
Yes, I do.
Hi Ansgar,
I'm speaking with a CTTE hat here, but not representing CTTE consensus.
On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 11:47:42PM +0200, Ansgar wrote:
> Dear ctte, please consider overruling the dpkg maintainer to include
> the patch from #994388[1].
I think we need to reject this request on multiple
Hi,
On Thu, 2023-05-11 at 00:32 +0200, Ansgar wrote:
> On Wed, 2023-05-10 at 23:47 +0200, Ansgar wrote:
> > Cool, then let's ask tech-ctte.
> >
> > Dear ctte, please consider overruling the dpkg maintainer to
> > include
> > the patch from #994388[1].
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ansgar
> >
> > [1]:
On Wed, 2023-05-10 at 23:47 +0200, Ansgar wrote:
> Cool, then let's ask tech-ctte.
>
> Dear ctte, please consider overruling the dpkg maintainer to include
> the patch from #994388[1].
>
> Thanks,
> Ansgar
>
> [1]: https://bugs.debian.org/994388#397
For derivatives based on Debian stable it
Package: tech-ctte
X-Debbugs-Cc: Russ Allbery , Sean Whitton
, Helmut Grohne , Luca Boccassi
, debian-d...@lists.debian.org, debian-de...@lists.debian.org
On Wed, 2023-05-10 at 14:36 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ansgar writes:
> > Debian going out of its way to tell derivative users to switch
Ansgar writes:
> On Wed, 2023-05-10 at 13:50 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Caring about them isn't the same thing as doing everything they want.
>> We can both try to make things as smooth for them as possible and still
>> make design decisions about Debian that they may disagree with or that
Hi Russ,
On Wed, 2023-05-10 at 13:50 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ansgar writes:
> > As far as I understand, we do explicitly *not* care about our
> > derivatives with regard to merged-/usr as some packages in Debian
> > recommend users to move *away* from merged-/usr to split-/usr on
> >
Ansgar writes:
> So why do we allow changes that require listing all reverse dependencies
> in Breaks then? This is known to be wrong for all non- listed packages,
> e.g., all local/vendor/derivative-specific packages.
Because it's a balance; we don't want to stop making changes, and never
On Wed, 2023-05-10 at 08:35 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Sun 07 May 2023 at 11:14AM +02, Ansgar wrote:
> > Debian's dependency system requires to explicitly declare
> > Depends/Conflicts/Replaces/Breaks, but for obvious reasons we
> > cannot do
> > that for packages outside Debian's ecosystem.
Hello,
On Sun 07 May 2023 at 12:03PM +01, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> Sure, this is in the context of the ongoing discussion in the TC about
> revising their side of the advice.
I think it's highly unlikely that we revise it rather than just reissue
it, at the present time, because too many details
Hello,
On Sat 06 May 2023 at 09:47PM +01, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> On Sat, 6 May 2023 at 19:51, Helmut Grohne wrote:
>>
>> > - the moratorium on moving files from bin/ sbin/ lib/ _and_ to other
>> > packages at the same time is maintained from bookworm till trixie, and
>> > will lifted after
18 matches
Mail list logo
