On Fri, Jan 05, 2024 at 09:17:52PM +0100, Paul Gevers wrote: > Hi Steve,
> On 05-01-2024 17:36, Rene Engelhard wrote: > > Also a problem is that experimental also might already contain totally > > unrelated updates like new upstream versions... > I share this worry. Have you thought about how to handle the cases where you > don't have experimental to upload to? How big is this problem? > Another worry, how will you provide the required changes to the maintainers > of the packages? Via BTS? For those working on salsa: MR? Both? Something > else? Obviously we should not end in the situation that a new upload goes > back to the old name (or are the ftp-masters so keen on this transition that > that won't happen? But what about newer versions with the old name already > in experimental, conform the former worry?). I've seen NMU's being ignored > by subsequent uploads by the maintainer, even when they fixed RC issues > which were then reintroduced. I would intend to provide diffs via the BTS. This remains the standard policy for NMUs in Debian per the Developer's Reference, and as far as I know has worked effectively for all such previous ABI transitions. I think it is reasonable to expect maintainers to pay attention to their bug mail as our defined Debian process. I don't think it would be reasonable to expect people working on cross-archive toolchain transitions to cater to individual maintainer preference in this regard. If a maintainer ignores the NMU and drops the rename, they'll be introducing a new library transition again on 32-bit archs. Won't they also be caught again in binary NEW, for those packages that don't have the same runtime library package name in experimental? It seems to me there's ample opportunity to catch such mistakes if they happen. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
