Hi Sebastian, On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 06:39:01 +0200 Helmut Grohne <hel...@subdivi.de> wrote: > As recently announced [1], the Release Team now considers packages that are > out-of-sync between testing and unstable for more than 60 days as having a > Release Critical bug in testing. Your package src:debianutils has been trying > to migrate for 60 days [2]. Hence, I am filing this bug. > > You removed essential functionality without implementing a proper > removal transition. Your package is therefore blocked by Sebastian > Ramacher. > > If a package is out of sync between unstable and testing for a longer > period, this usually means that bugs in the package in testing cannot be > fixed via unstable. That's not the case here. Additionally, blocked > packages can have impact on other packages, which makes preparing for > the release more difficult. Finally, it often exposes issues with the > package and/or its (reverse-)dependencies. We expect maintainers to fix > issues that hamper the migration of their package in a timely manner. > > I have not closed this bug in unstable as that version is considered > unfit for release by Sebastian Ramacher (release manager), so if that dispute > is resolved and the block is lifted, this bug needs to be closed manually. I > have also tagged this bug to only affect sid and bookworm, so it doesn't > affect (old-)stable.
I just packaged the last version of tempfile from debianutils in a new source package: https://salsa.debian.org/debian/debianutils-tempfile https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1004120 Clint agreed to add a Depends of debianutils on debianutils-tempfile which thus brings the tempfile utility back into the Essential:yes set and we can do the transition properly and remove debianutils-tempfile after bookworm or trixie. Sebastian, do you think that this is a solution that would allow debianutils to be unblocked from migration to testing? Thanks! cheers, josch
signature.asc
Description: signature
