>>>>> "Wouter" == Wouter Verhelst <wou...@debian.org> writes:
Wouter> I'm convinced there is a way that we can move forward which
Wouter> does *not* require bypassing the dpkg database. I think that
Wouter> such a way *should* be preferential, and the complete lack
Wouter> of even a desire to discuss things with the dpkg maintainer
Wouter> in ways that the dpkg maintainer thinks is a reasonable way
Wouter> forward is distressing for me.
Yeah, like extending dpkg to be able to tell dpkg that /bin and /sbin
are aliases and have it deal with that. I think that adding that
extension to dpkg is going to be simpler (technically) than getting the
handling right to move things in essential packages. Your corrections
(copy instead of mv, atomic symlink) are in my mind just the beginning
in terms of how complicated that's going to be. I noticed that neither
of you took a stab at the error handling for abort-upgrade.
We'd either need to do that for each essential package, or try and come
up with something (in debhelper?) that is a useful abstraction. In
practice we'd probably find that we needed a combination.
So, even though I think the extensions to dpkg will also be complicated,
at a purely technical level, I think they are less complicated.
I understand technical complexity is only part of the picture.
I understand the dpkg maintainer might make extending dpkg politically
challenging. I also agree that there are things we could have done
better throughout this process in terms of being respectful in our
decision making, giving people a chance to voice their opinions, but
ultimately letting a decision be made and all falling in on that
decision (or standing aside if we cannot) once that has been done.
I think the areas for improvement in decision making are broad here.
I'll pick examples from both sides.
During the discussion of the debootstrap decision to default to merged
/usr, several people pointed to a debian-devel thread and claimed that
thread came to a consensus in favor of merged /usr.
That was not obvious to me as someone who read the referenced thread.
More over, since no one chose to summarize the discussion, people didn't
have an opportunity to confirm they were on the same page or raise
objections if they felt concerns they raised had not been addressed.
Today though, I think we are approaching (or have passed) a point where
a decision has been made and people need to fall in (or stand aside) and
respect our processes.
If you don't feel that your concerns were adequately addressed, one
constructive thing you can do is help us develop better processes for
the future.
--Sam
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
