Timing on `Rules-Requires-Root: no` being the new default

[Niels Thykier]

Hi Release team,








With this in mind:

 * Do you think it is feasible for us to do this change in Trixie and,
   if so, do you have any preferences for timing or bug counts that we
   should keep in mind?


# Key packages



 * The maintainer for one of these has openly stated he thinks it is
   too late for Trixie (See #1089885). The maintainer is involved in
   at least 7 of the key packages (possibly 10). Given the lack of
   information about the freeze means I have no means to challenge him
   on this and he maintains a high portion of the key packages, which
   makes this a self-fulling prophecy.

   (For the totals, I have counted this group as 10 packages)

 * 3 are already fixed in sid + 2 have been NMUed and are in delayed.

 * 4 has a patch (or patch applied in git).

 * 6 have no updates, but I would be able to provide trivial patches.

 * 1 fails for unrelated reasons (has open FTBFS bug). It may or may not
   have a transition related bug hiding behind that FTBFS.

 * 1 is already broken due to misuse of `Rules-Requires-Root: no`
   (binutils-mipsen; see #1082298)





# The full numbers

 * 157 bugs would become RC if we hit the button today. Of these:

   - 11 has a patch (but are not pending)

   - 17 are pending. Most of these are NMUed in the delay queue.

 * 65 bugs are done/resolved in sid.


These numbers also include key packages.

Best regards,
Niels

Full list of key packages involved:

 * binutils-mipsen: #1082298; already broken before transition
   started: I have bumped this one to RC now.

 * cross-toolchain-base: See gcc-14-cross

 * cross-toolchain-base-mipsen: See gcc-14-cross

 * cross-toolchain-base-ports: See gcc-14-cross

 * dist: Bug filed, no updates.

 * gcc-13-cross: See gcc-14-cross

 * gcc-13-cross-mipsen: See gcc-14-cross

 * gcc-13-cross-ports: See gcc-14-cross

 * gcc-14-cross: #1089885. Maintainer has said he does not intend
   to fix it for Trixie on the claim that it is too late for Trixie.

 * gcc-14-cross-mipsen: See gcc-14-cross

 * gcc-14-cross-ports: See gcc-14-cross

 * liblockfile: Bug filed, no updates.

 * libspf2: NMUed, in delayed.

 * linux86: Bug filed, no updates.

 * lockfile-progs: Fixed and migrated to testing.

 * openjade: Filed today; I thought the problem was unrelated,
   but local rebuild confirmed that
   `Rules-Requires-Root: binary-targets` avoids the FTBFS.

 * pillow: See gcc-14-cross

 * schroot: Patch applied in git. Pending maintainer upload

 * shim: Patch in BTS/MR

 * shim-helpers-arm64-signed: Patch in BTS/MR

 * sidplay-libs: Bug filed, no updates.

 * slurm-wlm: Fixed and migrated (24.11.0-1).

 * taglib: Patch merged into git

 * ucf: Fixed and migrated (3.0046).

 * uw-imap: Fails for unrelated reasons (#1075612). May hide a R³
   related bug behind that RC bug.

 * wide-dhcpv6: Bug filed, no updates.

 * xorg: NMUed, in delayed

I could use your views on the `Rules-Requires-Root: no` MBF/transition here. Concretely, I am looking for your gut feeling on if/when we commit to the MBF and have the remaining bugs bumped to RC. While I have no doubt this counts part of the "transition and toolchain freeze", there is no announced date for that freeze step, so I have no idea of the "deadline" for it either. Please keep in mind that all these bugs can always be reduced to a "one-line fix", which is "Insert `Rules-Requires-Root: binary-targets` into `debian/control`". This explicitly requests the current status quo, meaning there is 0 risk of regressions when applying the fix. To help getting the discussions going, I have the gathered data below on key packages and the totals. A total of 27 key packages are known to be involved in the transition. I am doing a full list of those below. In other words, the biggest group of packages in the key packages set is stalled by a single maintainer stating this is too late for Trixie.

OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature