You wrote: > On 2/7/21 2:00 PM, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: [..] > I previously thought that libburnia is already being used by all relevant > packages > and that cdrkit is required only for mkisofs, in particular for creating ISO > images with a HFS (not HFS+) filesystem.
That was also my vague understanding from some earlier discussion, but quite clearly this is not true :-( > If cdrkit is actually being used by so many packages, then it should have been > in much better shape before being shipped with a Debian release. Just painting > over this single issue is not the right approach in my opinion and there are > certainly more issues with cdrkit than just the FTBFS. > > The number of patches in the Fedora package speaks for itself [1]. > > I don't think we're doing ourselves a favor by rushing hotfixes in to get > these > packages into the next release. Given I saw you making this argument in another bug report - what other options do we have? For packages that are not yet O:, or those well-connected like a key package, we could only wait for someone to show up and do the work. How long are we willing to wait? Right now we can only go with "this was good enough in the last release" and ignore (possibly perceived) larger problems until after the release. And then we hope for the volunteers to show up and do the necessary cleanups. Nobody seems to have filed bugs against cdrkits reverse dependencies, so we are not even at the point of hoping for someone to arrive. Chris (usually in favor of RM:, but that also has become a lot harder recently)
