On Fri, 2024-08-16 at 16:54 +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 05:21:38PM +0200, Philip Hands wrote: > > 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. > > Ah, good to know, thanks. I didn't notice that since it wasn't > mentioned in the iproute2 changelog. > > > 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. > > Quite. If nothing else, I think the code actually in the Debian archive > that relies on the old path ought to be changed _first_, e.g. via an > MBF. I see a bunch of cases that are relatively subtle and might suck a > lot of other people's time trying to debug them from cold, such as > AppArmor profiles and example scripts, and it's just good manners to > give maintainers an explicit heads-up.
I've made a team upload of iproute2 (version 6.10.0-2) with this change reverted. Luca, please leave the symlink in place at least as long as there are packages that rely on it. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings All the simple programs have been written, and all the good names taken
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
