On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 05:45:49PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Tue, 2024-09-24 at 15:58:10 +0200, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Obviously it's far too late to do anything with the default for trixie, > > we might want to evaluate doing something after the release but for now > > it's too late. > Personally I don't think it's too late, there should be several months > until the freeze, and I think if we wanted to switch we could perhaps > do a staged transition and see how it goes and only do the final > replacement if everything seems fine. We do OTOH package more software than most distros on more architectures so we got a lot more exposure for testing coverage, and the revert would involve switching the entire implementation which complicates things a bit compared to a risky patch within a package. I'm not totally opposed, and if everything goes smoothly we could definitely implement it within the timeframe, but it feels like an impactful change to introduce now not having considered it sooner. > (perhaps) exceeding changed circumstances. But given your mail, I'm > happy to work on this again and start with say uploading some initial > stuff into experimental for example, after this thread settles a bit? > (I'll start by refreshing the packaging first though.) Sure. > > Does anyone have thoughts on this? > Personally, I think fully migrating from zlib to zlib-ng would sound > great (even for trixie), but I guess we can take it slow if you do not > feel confident or have concerns over this. > Also if you'd prefer to take over the zlib-ng ITP, as a continuation > of zlib, that'd seem fine with me too. I'm fine with you carrying on with it (actually there is some slight non-technical complication for me with doing it myself), or we could also consider a packaging team. I think there was some other interest in helping out but ICBW. If you're packaging it I'm also more confident in letting you worry about how risky it is to transition and deal with any fallout! :P
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
