On 1/21/19 9:52 AM, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: >>If someone is using unstable, I expect them to be able to resolve >>such issues themselves. unstable isn't a release, it's a development >>version of Debian. > > ehm, this bug hit testing too :/
No, it didn't. What makes you think so? The version of sane-backends with the libsane1 package was never migrated to testing, see: > https://packages.qa.debian.org/s/sane-backends.html Quoting the testing migration mail: > FYI: The status of the sane-backends source package > in Debian's testing distribution has changed. > Previous version: 1.0.25-4.1 > Current version: 1.0.27-3.1 Testing upgraded from 1.0.25-4.1 to 1.0.27-3.1, the rename happened in 1.0.27-1~experimental1. >>I don't understand why some users install unstable without understanding >>the ramifications of using a development version of Debian. > > I honestly never cared about unstable or even experimental, but testing is > something > we should consider with our upgrade paths... Yes, but testing is not affected. Again, what makes you think so? If someone pulled the packages from experimental and installed them into testing, I expect them to know and understand what they were doing. It's not Debian's job to support broken local configurations. > Anyway, revised debdiff attached :) Please don't. It was never part of testing so there are not kludges required. And, again, unstable is not guaranteed to be stable, hence the name. If someone can point me to the point in the policy where it says that upgrades and migrations in unstable need to be smooth and without such issues, I am happy to revise my point of view. Thanks, Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de `- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
