Re: Is an MBF and unblock for packages introducing new files in /bin or /sbin or /lib in Bookworm acceptable at this stage?

On Tue, 23 May 2023 at 17:48, Paul Gevers wrote: > > Hi, > > On 21-05-2023 21:22, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > If we were to do a MBF against packages that in _Bookworm_ have > > introduced new files in /bin, /sbin or /lib*, would you accept the > > consequent mass unblock request? > > Short answer

Re: Is an MBF and unblock for packages introducing new files in /bin or /sbin or /lib in Bookworm acceptable at this stage?

Hi, On 21-05-2023 21:22, Luca Boccassi wrote: If we were to do a MBF against packages that in _Bookworm_ have introduced new files in /bin, /sbin or /lib*, would you accept the consequent mass unblock request? Short answer is no, it's too late. Paul OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP

Re: Is an MBF and unblock for packages introducing new files in /bin or /sbin or /lib in Bookworm acceptable at this stage?

On Mon, 22 May 2023 at 23:07, Sam Hartman wrote: > > > "Luca" == Luca Boccassi writes: > > >> I suspect the reason you want to make this MBF is that you > >> believe it > Luca> will somehow make the transition easier if there are fewer > Luca> files in /bin or /usr/bin. > >

Re: Is an MBF and unblock for packages introducing new files in /bin or /sbin or /lib in Bookworm acceptable at this stage?

On Mon, 22 May 2023 at 22:40, Sam Hartman wrote: > > ;> "Luca" == Luca Boccassi writes: > Luca> So what you are worried is the combination of a testing > Luca> installation from~one year ago, that is otherwise never > Luca> touched for say another year, and also that has one of

Re: Is an MBF and unblock for packages introducing new files in /bin or /sbin or /lib in Bookworm acceptable at this stage?

> "Luca" == Luca Boccassi writes: >> I suspect the reason you want to make this MBF is that you >> believe it Luca> will somehow make the transition easier if there are fewer Luca> files in /bin or /usr/bin. Luca> IE, you immediately escalated it with aggressiveness

Re: Is an MBF and unblock for packages introducing new files in /bin or /sbin or /lib in Bookworm acceptable at this stage?

On Mon, 22 May 2023 at 22:13, Étienne Mollier wrote: > > Luca Boccassi, on 2023-05-22: > > On Mon, 22 May 2023 at 20:34, Sam Hartman wrote: > > > > > > > "Luca" == Luca Boccassi writes: > > > > > > Luca> On Mon, 22 May 2023 at 20:22, Sam Hartman > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >>

Re: Is an MBF and unblock for packages introducing new files in /bin or /sbin or /lib in Bookworm acceptable at this stage?

;> "Luca" == Luca Boccassi writes: Luca> So what you are worried is the combination of a testing Luca> installation from~one year ago, that is otherwise never Luca> touched for say another year, and also that has one of those Luca> 23 packages installed in the old version, and

Re: Is an MBF and unblock for packages introducing new files in /bin or /sbin or /lib in Bookworm acceptable at this stage?

Luca Boccassi, on 2023-05-22: > On Mon, 22 May 2023 at 20:34, Sam Hartman wrote: > > > > > "Luca" == Luca Boccassi writes: > > > > Luca> On Mon, 22 May 2023 at 20:22, Sam Hartman > > wrote: > > >> > > >> > "Luca" == Luca Boccassi writes: > > >> > > Luca> Hello

Re: Is an MBF and unblock for packages introducing new files in /bin or /sbin or /lib in Bookworm acceptable at this stage?

> "Michael" == Michael Biebl writes: Michael> Am 22.05.23 um 21:34 schrieb Sam Hartman: >> enough benefit to justify breaking testing. >> Michael> No-one is breaking testing, as files are not moved between Michael> packages. Files are moved between packages all the

Re: Is an MBF and unblock for packages introducing new files in /bin or /sbin or /lib in Bookworm acceptable at this stage?

Am 22.05.23 um 21:34 schrieb Sam Hartman: enough benefit to justify breaking testing. No-one is breaking testing, as files are not moved between packages. OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Is an MBF and unblock for packages introducing new files in /bin or /sbin or /lib in Bookworm acceptable at this stage?

On Mon, 22 May 2023 at 20:34, Sam Hartman wrote: > > > "Luca" == Luca Boccassi writes: > > Luca> On Mon, 22 May 2023 at 20:22, Sam Hartman > wrote: > >> > >> > "Luca" == Luca Boccassi writes: > >> > Luca> Hello Release Team, If we were to do a MBF against packages

Re: Is an MBF and unblock for packages introducing new files in /bin or /sbin or /lib in Bookworm acceptable at this stage?

On Mon, 22 May 2023 at 20:22, Sam Hartman wrote: > > > "Luca" == Luca Boccassi writes: > > Luca> Hello Release Team, If we were to do a MBF against packages > Luca> that in _Bookworm_ have introduced new files in /bin, /sbin or > Luca> /lib*, would you accept the consequent mass

Re: Is an MBF and unblock for packages introducing new files in /bin or /sbin or /lib in Bookworm acceptable at this stage?

> "Luca" == Luca Boccassi writes: Luca> On Mon, 22 May 2023 at 20:22, Sam Hartman wrote: >> >> > "Luca" == Luca Boccassi writes: >> Luca> Hello Release Team, If we were to do a MBF against packages Luca> that in _Bookworm_ have introduced new files in /bin,

Re: Is an MBF and unblock for packages introducing new files in /bin or /sbin or /lib in Bookworm acceptable at this stage?

> "Luca" == Luca Boccassi writes: Luca> Hello Release Team, If we were to do a MBF against packages Luca> that in _Bookworm_ have introduced new files in /bin, /sbin or Luca> /lib*, would you accept the consequent mass unblock request? Luca> I am asking beforehand as there's

Re: Is an MBF and unblock for packages introducing new files in /bin or /sbin or /lib in Bookworm acceptable at this stage?

Hi Luca, Luca Boccassi, on 2023-05-22: > On Sun, 21 May 2023 at 20:31, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > > > On Sun, 21 May 2023 at 20:29, Christoph Berg wrote: > > > > > > Re: Luca Boccassi > > > > If we were to do a MBF against packages that in _Bookworm_ have > > > > introduced new files in /bin,

Re: Is an MBF and unblock for packages introducing new files in /bin or /sbin or /lib in Bookworm acceptable at this stage?

Hi Luca, On Mon, 22 May 2023 00:03:46 +0100 Luca Boccassi wrote: > On Sun, 21 May 2023 at 20:31, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > > > On Sun, 21 May 2023 at 20:29, Christoph Berg > > wrote: > > > > > > Re: Luca Boccassi > > > > If we were to do a MBF against packages that in _Bookworm_ have > > > >

Re: Is an MBF and unblock for packages introducing new files in /bin or /sbin or /lib in Bookworm acceptable at this stage?

On Sun, 21 May 2023 at 20:31, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > On Sun, 21 May 2023 at 20:29, Christoph Berg wrote: > > > > Re: Luca Boccassi > > > If we were to do a MBF against packages that in _Bookworm_ have > > > introduced new files in /bin, /sbin or /lib*, would you accept the > > > consequent

Re: Is an MBF and unblock for packages introducing new files in /bin or /sbin or /lib in Bookworm acceptable at this stage?

On Sun, 21 May 2023 at 20:29, Christoph Berg wrote: > > Re: Luca Boccassi > > If we were to do a MBF against packages that in _Bookworm_ have > > introduced new files in /bin, /sbin or /lib*, would you accept the > > consequent mass unblock request? > > Fwiw, I would restrict that to packages

Re: Is an MBF and unblock for packages introducing new files in /bin or /sbin or /lib in Bookworm acceptable at this stage?

Re: Luca Boccassi > If we were to do a MBF against packages that in _Bookworm_ have > introduced new files in /bin, /sbin or /lib*, would you accept the > consequent mass unblock request? Fwiw, I would restrict that to packages that didn't have files in these directories before. Telling a

Is an MBF and unblock for packages introducing new files in /bin or /sbin or /lib in Bookworm acceptable at this stage?

Hello Release Team, If we were to do a MBF against packages that in _Bookworm_ have introduced new files in /bin, /sbin or /lib*, would you accept the consequent mass unblock request? I am asking beforehand as there's no point in going through the effort if you don't, the advantage is only if we