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. -- Colin Watson (he/him) [cjwat...@debian.org]
