severity 1095791 serious
thanks
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025, Guillem Jover wrote:
>> >From what I can tell from other mails, I believe the package in
>> question is openjdk-8 (unstable only); see bug #1095746.
>
>Ah, thanks for the context. In that case, going by that bug report, it
>looks like openjdk-8 was most probably already buggy, and this seems
>like another instance of what was reported in:
Yes, it’s one of doko’s originally, and it’s mostly on life support
due to many active users. I was unaware of the change due to not
having been included in the MBF I only learnt about after reporting
the bug on the Fediverse; who knows what other packages are excluded?
This also cost me *quite* some debugging, which could have been avoided.
It’s still an RC bug in dpkg because Policy specifically says that
the default value isn’t “no”, though.
Furthermore, this WILL break numerous third-party and downstream distro
packages. I consider this a bad change, not only deliberately backwards‐
incompatible, but also SILENTLY changing. If you wanted to have gotten
rid of packages not declaring R³ and force package maintainers into even
more (usual culprit is lintian) useless churn, go make that an error,
but do NOT *ever* change the default value in a backwards-incompatible
way leading to silent failures.
Plus, you have invented this whole dpkg-build-api thing. Go make that
change THERE instead.
So, due to the Policy violation, raising severity again. If you want to
not have this treated as RC bug, ensure a changed Policy is released
first. But I ask you to move the default change to the dpkg-build-api
thingy instead.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
Yes, I hate users and I want them to suffer.
-- Marco d'Itri on gmane.linux.debian.devel.general
