Hi release team, Martin and me are having a disagreement on what constitutes an RC bug. I was wondering if you could give us your view of the matter. Since I'm not sure you usually deal with these sorts of things "Go ask TC" is ofc. a perfectly valid response I just thought perhaps we're not quite at that stage yet.
See below or https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1089598. Context: dhcpcd-base has taken over DHCP duties from isc-dhcp-client in ustable via priority override at Martin's request. This changes a Debian installs DHCP behaviour in a number of ways which I think will cause people problems when they upgrade to trixie, this is one of them. Original report: > dhcpcd-base does not send the system's hostname by default as > isc-dhcp-client used to due to /etc/dhcpcd.conf having the `hostname` > option commented out. > > This will cause outages for users relying on DDNS when upgrading to > trixie. Please let's change the default before releasing this. ifupdown's > reputation is already hanging on by a thread as it is. Martin's interpretation (with some quote context reinstated): On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 02:55:26PM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote: > > > 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? > > Your interpretation is excessive. "Misses something that the other > software did" does not fulfil the requirement for RC bugs. Thanks, --Daniel
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
