El 03/10/22 a las 19:40, Shengjing Zhu escribió: > On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 7:31 PM Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <o...@debian.org> wrote: > > > > 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, or if apt > > grew a "section/packagename" syntax (which would be bizarre). > > > > Can we have different versions in each section? > > + non-free/pkgA version~1 > + non-free-firmware/pkgA version~2
that wouldn't comply with the current policy: https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-binary.html#the-package-name > > And let non-free/pkgA version~1 just fail during upgrade and produce a > migration guide. > > -- > Shengjing Zhu >
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
