On Wed, Jul 01, 2026 at 08:57:32PM +0300, Peter Pentchev wrote: > On Wed, Jul 01, 2026 at 10:51:17AM -0700, Collin Funk wrote: > > Peter Pentchev <[email protected]> writes: > > > > >> > Just to for the record: > > >> > > > >> > My issue is not at all with you adding variants, uutils or otherwise. > > >> > My > > >> > issue is with you silent changing the "coreutils" package to be uutils > > >> > coreutils. Your message does nothing to address that point. > > >> > > >> ...an experimental upload... > > >> ...for a specific purpose requested by another developer for a test... > > >> ...months ago, with no follow-up uploads or discussion afterwards... > > >> ...and with later uploads of the coreutils package that have absolutely > > >> no trace of these changes... > > >> > > >> ...so I would say this is *exactly* what Debian experimental is for - > > >> experiments that may never see another upload, ever, depending on > > >> how things turn out. > > > > > > ...and just in case it wasn't clear from my message, let me spell it out: > > > > > > From the beginning of this thread, I was pretty much sure that this was > > > NOT any conspiracy to, secretly, without discussion, replace Debian's > > > coreutils package. > > > > > > After Julian Andres's message, I became 100% certain of that. > > > > Just to reiterate, I had seen the experimental update months ago. I > > agree that it is perfectly fine to do that. > > > > The only reason I became concerned was upon seeing this text on a site > > managed by another Debian developer (who does not maintain the > > "coreutils" package): > > > > Debian is also following Ubuntu's path toward making uutils the > > default. > > > > I do not think it is an unreasonable assumption to think that one would > > discuss on debian-devel before making definitive claims like this. > > Well, IMHO it kind of is, since the package maintainer said that > no change would be made without discussion.
...wait, I worded that wrong. In short, yes, I absolutely agree with you that a switch to uutils coreutils requires discussion on d-devel (which never happened, and there was no switch). And yes, I agree that the claim may have been too strong... > Another developer making > a non-maintainer upload of coreutils to unstable (NOT experimental!) > would really be extremely, and I do mean extremely, unusual, and > it would indeed be a cause of concern. But that never happened :) > > So your main worry stems from a sentence on the uttils website, which > has subsequently been removed, possibly as a result of this thread :) ...but that was all on the uutils website, not in the Debian archive, not on the d-devel list :) G'luck, Peter -- Peter Pentchev [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] PGP key: https://www.ringlet.net/roam/roam.key.asc Key fingerprint 2EE7 A7A5 17FC 124C F115 C354 651E EFB0 2527 DF13
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
