Josh Triplett <j...@joshtriplett.org> writes: > On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 10:35:10 -0700 Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> wrote:
>> That said, I personally am disappointed that the folks who have been >> pushing merged-/usr forward are willing to leave dpkg in a known-buggy >> state without attempting to patch it to fix the remaining issues. I >> realize that there are various obstacles in successfully doing that, >> not all of which are technical, > I don't think "willing to" is a fair characterization here. It's possible that you haven't seen the discussions that I've been in, but whenever I point out that this hasn't been fixed and that we should fix it, I am told, often quite emphatically, that Ubuntu has never seen any problems and therefore this problem is not important and no one needs to fix it. It's hard for me not to characterize this as "willing to" leave dpkg in a state that I'd characterize as buggy. I certainly agree that there are also other challenges in fixing dpkg. However, it would be nice if we could at least agree that it's necessary to fix dpkg, rather than arguing that it's fine to leave it in its current state. (In fact, I suspect this belief that the current state is fine and reasonable to leave things in permanently is part of what's making it harder to discuss how to best fix dpkg in a way that is sustainable and supportable going forward.) -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
