On Fri, 26 May 2023 at 08:39, Matthew Vernon <matt...@debian.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 26/05/2023 07:03, Ansgar wrote: > > On Wed, 2023-05-10 at 14:36 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > >> Ansgar <ans...@43-1.org> writes: > >>> Debian going out of its way to tell derivative users to switch back from > >>> merged-/usr to split-/usr is the *opposite* of trying to make things as > >>> smooth for them as possible. > >> > >> Yes, I agree with that part and I think I objected to that at the time. > >> Nonetheless, one bad decision doesn't mean that it is Debian policy that > >> we don't care about derivatives or their users. I think we made a mistake > >> there which is not in alignment with our ideals or our goals. We should > >> try to reverse that mistake, not double down on it. > > > > My impression is that the tech-ctte disagrees on this point and would > > not want to reverse the mistake, but double down on it (in your words). > > Your impression is incorrect. And assigning motivations to other parties > during contentious discussions should be done with care if at all. > > Consider: it is consistent to believe that it would have been better for > dpkg not to have had that warning added (quite some time ago now), but > that by now most derivatives that care will likely have patched it out > again (mitigating the harm); and if the current work on dpkg is allowed > to run its course then the warning will probably go away anyway.
That assumes all derivatives track unstable/testing and have taken action, but it is possible for derivatives to track stable only, and those would be broken. Kind regards, Luca Boccassi