El 03/10/22 a las 11:31, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud escribió: > 3 octobre 2022 11:11 "Santiago Ruano Rincón" <santiag...@riseup.net> a écrit: > > El 02/10/22 a las 20:42, Michael Biebl escribió: > >> Am 02.10.22 um 20:14 schrieb Luca Boccassi: > >> On Sun, 2022-10-02 at 10:52 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > >> In Bullseye we changed the name/syntax for the security repository, and > >> for that a mention in the release notes was enough, no? Isn't this a > >> very similar situation? > >> > >> The main difference is, that the renaming caused an error message by apt, > >> so > >> you knew something needed to be fixed. > >> > >> For this particular change, there will be no error. So yes, I have the same > >> fear as Russ that this particular change might go unnoticed. > > > > Couldn't we handle this via transitional firware* non-free packages, > > that depend on bookworm non-free-firmware packages? > > That would only work if we renamed all concerned binary packages,
Indeed. Something like:
bullseye:
firmware-linux-nonfree (non-free)
bookworm:
firmware-linux-nonfree (non-free) - empty, that
Depends on: firmware-linux-nonfree-bookworm (non-free-firmware) -
find a better name/suffix
trixie:
firmware-linux-nonfree-bookworm (non-free-firmware) - empty
Depends on: firmware-linux-nonfree (non-free-firmware)
trixie+1:
firmware-linux-nonfree (non-free-firmware)
and so on.
It is (also) bizarre, but this would help users make sure they include
the non-free-firmware section when required. I suppose apt would
complain if it cannot satisfy the dependency due to a missing section.
> or if apt grew a "section/packagename" syntax (which would be bizarre).
Beyond being bizarre, users and other tools would have to learn that
syntax.
Cheers,
-- Santiago
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
