On Wed, Sep 08, 2021 at 01:37:37PM +0200, Ansgar wrote: > Maybe we should just find out who is responsible for this decision and > reassign the bug to them. The installer team maintaining d-i and > debootstrap or the mirror team seem reasonable choices?
We've already tried that approach on the /usr-merge and the resulting transition is miserable. Let's not repeat that mistake. It's the same pattern actually: * People propose a change that does have positive effects, though some find the positive effects unimportant. * Other people disagree and raise concerns. * Concerns are ignored. <- This is where we are with https-default. * Change is being implemented anyway. * Stuff breaks. <- This is where we are with /usr-merge. This is frustrating. I do see the advantages of using https. I do not see how to not make it happen without breaking relevant use cases. Same with the /usr-merge. I do see the advantages. I've stopped counting the things that broke. Most recent one is the uucp FTBFS. Change has a cost. I do not want to pay the cost for either of these changes. Helmut
