On Mon, 22 May 2023 at 20:22, Sam Hartman <hartm...@debian.org> wrote: > > >>>>> "Luca" == Luca Boccassi <bl...@debian.org> writes: > > Luca> Hello Release Team, If we were to do a MBF against packages > Luca> that in _Bookworm_ have introduced new files in /bin, /sbin or > Luca> /lib*, would you accept the consequent mass unblock request? > Luca> I am asking beforehand as there's no point in going through > Luca> the effort if you don't, the advantage is only if we can sort > Luca> it before Bookworm ships, and the bugs would become invalid > Luca> and be closed as soon as it does as per moratorium otherwise. > > This sounds like a really bad idea. > While technically this is consistent with the TC's advice, what you are > proposing to do increases the chance that you're going to trigger the > dpkg disappearing file bug. > > Consider: > > * User installs version from testing with file in /bin > * Maintainer quickly moves the file to /usr/bin per your MBF > * Bookworm releases; user does not upgrade at this point > * Package reorganization; file moves between packages > * User upgrades; file disappears
What "package reorganization" would that be? Are you aware of any such thing happening in the next couple of weeks before release? > I suspect the reason you want to make this MBF is that you believe it > will somehow make the transition easier if there are fewer files in /bin > or /usr/bin. No, the main reason is that Helmut asked for this. And the ask makes sense: it's something that should have been part of the TC guidance, introducing new files in the wrong locations makes little sense. Kind regards, Luca Boccassi