On Tue, 2018-07-31 at 17:23:31 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 02:12:13AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > I'm detaching dpkg from this, I don't see anything constructive to do > > out if this, TBH. > > > If someone wants to see dpkg changed in some way related to this, I'd > > request the same thing I did to Ian a couple of years ago, gather > > input from derivatives and other current users, on their reasons for > > using it, or start a discussion with them on whether they'd be > > satisfied with potential alternatives, etc. > > I will limit myself to pointing out the asymmetry of this requirement: > Ubuntu as a derivative was not consulted before ubuntu.series was inflicted > on us, but other derivatives who like this feature must be consulted before > upstream will un-break it for Ubuntu.
I'm not sure why any possible asymmetry is surprising at all? Removing or disabling features is always harder than adding them? More so if there are known users happy with them? And also when the objections do not seem to be generally applicable. Should the addition of the feature have gathered more input from derivatives? Perhaps. AIUI, for Ubuntu at least Colin was consulted. That Ubuntu finds it to be a problem as a Debian downstream, with these packages percolating into Ubuntu? Well, you could also have tried to argue your case to the ftp-masters and lintian maintainers, that this is making your life difficult, and whether they would reject packages with debian/patches/ubuntu.series. Or convince the maintainers in Debian using them that this is in fact not helping you. Apparently, you do not even need to do that anymore, you just need to get a ctte to ban them from Debian. I'm not sure how requiring input from affected parties for a change in dpkg that would affect not only Ubuntu but all derivatives and local usage, seems onerous at all, TBH… Regards, Guillem
