Hi Martin, On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 08:36:05PM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote: > Please see recently closed bugs. Someone recently requested the same > thing. Upstream insists on shipping that option commented out because he > feels that exposing the hostname is a privacy issue.
It was already archived so didn't show up in a casual skim. For reference, that's #1086119 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1086119 > Additionally, please point me to the release policy that would qualify > this bug report as RC. Thanks. Release standards (RC bugs) https://release.debian.org/testing/rc_policy.txt I'm taking a liberal interpretation of what it means to "break unrelated software" but given the nature of networking (essentially everything relies on it) and the potential of breaking entire deployments (where unattended-upgrades are in use) I think this is justified. We can consult release team if you feel this is an overly broad interpretation. Since we've had a similar but unresolved disagreement hinging on privacy in https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2024/09/msg00194.html I don't want you to get me wrong. I care deeply about our user's privacy, particularly the inexperienced ones, but at the same time we have to consider software use-cases in context as well as remember that users trust Debian enough to just-upgrade^TM! We must not squander that trust -- it's Debian's greatest asset. I'm sure we can come up with an approach to move the networking privacy needle in Debian, but it would help to understand who's privacy you (or upstream) are concerned about since to me Desktop environements setting things up for privacy would solve the problem with no need for the default to be unfrendly to server operators. Clearly that's not enough for you so what's the use-case and persona who's privacy you're trying to improve? --Daniel
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
