On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 12:54:35 +0100 Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> wrote: > On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 at 12:42:11 +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > In the meanwhile, I'll immediately revert the sabotage. > > Both of you, please don't turn this into an NMU war in the archive: > that doesn't benefit anyone. I would have preferred it if Adam had not > immediately uploaded a 0-day revert, but preserving the status quo from > bookworm is not the worst state to be in while we discuss this. > > If Adam's concerns about this change are valid, then we should address > them, either by doing something different in debootstrap or by reporting > bugs against affected packages. > > If Adam's concerns about this change turn out to be unfounded, then we > should reinstate my change (as NMU'd by Luca) in a calm and considered > way, and all we will have lost is a few days of progress and a few bytes > of changelog. I have already reverted the hostile and unwarranted NMU before you replied. And that is the right thing to do: the correct procedure when there is a suspicion that a change breaks something is not to do a 0- day revert without telling anybody, it's to file a bug _AND_ CC the involved people, and wait until there is an answer, while providing evidence of the actual issue. As you already correctly noted, there is zero evidence of any issue presented in this bug, and the stated 'reason' is wrong anyway: debootstrap from unstable/testing is NOT used to build packages for unstable/testing. This would have been trivial to find out for the reporter. So as with normal procedure, the change will stand where it is, and if there is evidence of any actual issues it can be revisited later. Blocking other people's progress with work that has the consensus of both the project and the CTTE and force them to spend days or weeks or months proving negatives is not an acceptable procedure. -- Kind regards, Luca Boccassi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part