Colin Watson <cjwat...@debian.org> writes: > On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 11:14:41PM +0530, Nilesh Patra wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 12:30:22PM -0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote: >> > At 2024-08-15T13:20:02-0400, Michael Stone wrote: >> > > It's just so depressing that this is how debian works now. We used to >> > > try to not break things, now the answer is "you should have read the >> > > NEWS, and known that unrelated packages were going to break, and >> > > reconfigured standard debian network tools to add non-default >> > > timeouts". All because the aesthetic preference for not having the >> > > same binary appear in two different paths is a higher priority than >> > > keeping systems working. >> > >> > "Move fast and break as much stuff as possible, or Debian will be doomed >> > to irrelevance. I'll be SABDFL someday!" >> > >> > The creed of the _impactful_ developer. >> >> It looks like a pretty pointless change - breaks several scripts for example. >> It was/is common to assume /sbin/ip to be present and usable. >> Michael's bug report does make sense to me. Such a change is even causing >> systems to not bootup. > > On 2024-07-14 (five days before the iproute2 change was made), there was > this conversation on #debian-devel: > > 19:14 <petn-randall> Is there a reason why iproute2 ships a symlink > from /sbin/ip to /bin/ip? I've looked into the packaging repo and it > seems to predate the git log. > ... > 19:52 <cjwatson> petn-randall: > https://codesearch.debian.net/search?q=%2Fsbin%2Fip%5Cb&literal=0 has > a pretty non-trivial list of things that would need fixed before > removing that (and of course some false positives) > > I realize it wasn't petn-randall who made this change, but it seems a > big coincidence that the symlink was dropped a few days after this IRC > conversation; and yet it seems nobody bothered to do the most basic due > diligence that I pointed out here, which is kind of sad. (I fixed > wireless-tools after this change caused an RC bug there.)
I think it probably was just a coincidence, since it looks like the change was made in order to fix #1064795 which was reported on 25 Feb 2024. Luka, how about temporarily reverting this change to give people a chance to prepare for it? BTW I'm not directly affected by this AFAIK, so I'm not asking for me. It just strikes me as obvious that removing any long-standing binary path in Debian is pretty-much bound to break someone's system, and if you want to do that you really ought to at least check, and preferably try to work out a way of warning them about it, or fixing the breakage first. I note that neither the Changelog nor the NEWS file mentioned this as a breaking change or issued anything like a warning about it. https://salsa.debian.org/kernel-team/iproute2/-/commit/c4bb148dd4ed0601ca32ee8a458007d0c348d6c3 Cheers, Phil. -- Philip Hands -- https://hands.com/~phil
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
