>>>>> "Luca" == Luca Boccassi <bl...@debian.org> writes:
Luca> On Mon, 22 May 2023 at 20:22, Sam Hartman <hartm...@debian.org> wrote: >> >> >>>>> "Luca" == Luca Boccassi <bl...@debian.org> writes: >> Luca> Hello Release Team, If we were to do a MBF against packages Luca> that in _Bookworm_ have introduced new files in /bin, /sbin or Luca> /lib*, would you accept the consequent mass unblock request? Luca> I am asking beforehand as there's no point in going through Luca> the effort if you don't, the advantage is only if we can sort Luca> it before Bookworm ships, and the bugs would become invalid Luca> and be closed as soon as it does as per moratorium otherwise. >> >> This sounds like a really bad idea. While technically this is >> consistent with the TC's advice, what you are proposing to do >> increases the chance that you're going to trigger the dpkg >> disappearing file bug. >> >> Consider: >> >> * User installs version from testing with file in /bin * >> Maintainer quickly moves the file to /usr/bin per your MBF * >> Bookworm releases; user does not upgrade at this point * Package >> reorganization; file moves between packages * User upgrades; file >> disappears Luca> What "package reorganization" would that be? Are you aware of Luca> any such thing happening in the next couple of weeks before Luca> release? Who said anything about next couple of weeks. This affects testing and unstable users *after the release*. It is my experience of Debian that outside of freezes package reorganizations happen regularly. I think your plan is safe for stable users if we actually find a solution to canonicalize paths during the next cycle. I do not think your plan is safe for people who track testing, and for me there's not enough benefit to justify breaking testing.