On Sun, 24 Oct 2021, Clint Adams wrote: > > In any case, a message saying that which is deprecated when in fact > > `which` will stay around (but maintained in another packages) is not > > helpful. > > Tell me, what would be helpful?
A coordinated take over of the binary with a proper transition as recommended by the tech-ctte. I have sympathy with your reasoning and I can certainly relate to things that we did 20 years ago, where we happily broke unstable after a release but we have changed. Yes, on some aspects we have become more conservative. I certainly wish to change that, but not by going backwards, but by providing new avenues to experiment and make large-scale changes without breaking unstable/testing. > On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 11:50:32AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > > As Raphael has mentioned, it's unlikely that when debianutils' which(1) > > has been replaced with one in another essential or transitively > > essential package that the new which(1), whether it's the same code or > > something else, will print deprecation warnings. And then it seems odd > > to print them for a while and then stop printing them. > > I find this to be a curious statement. This implies a contract of > future behavior that does not exist. Right, but that's we are doing in Debian when we discuss together and make plans for further changes and then try to stick to the plan. You seem to consider Debian as a more "organic entity" that is not controllable and that you have no chance to influence. And as often, the reality is somewhere in the middle. Cheers, -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Raphaël Hertzog <hert...@debian.org> ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ The Debian Handbook: https://debian-handbook.info/get/ ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Debian Long Term Support: https://deb.li/LTS
