Bug#994275: Reverting breaking changes in debianutils

[Raphael Hertzog]

On Mon, 01 Nov 2021, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Of course we should be exploring the new avenues that you mention.  But
> becoming more willing to break unstable/testing than we are at present
> might also be good for our project.

Maybe, maybe not. What are you basing your assertion on?

From my (limited) point of view, Debian testing/unstable is used by many
derivatives because it's largely usable and stable, and we do get many
contributions due to this.

I for one contribute many fixes to Debian because Kali is built on Debian
testing. At some point it was based on Debian stable and I was largely not
able to contribute to Debian, and if we did break testing/unstable more
often, the net result would likely that Kali would switch back to stable.

I don't really see any scenario where breaking unstable/testing helps us
in any way. Except if the breakage is really limited in time, and if the
breakage does not affect upgrade paths, etc. But then I would no longer
call that "breaking unstable/testing".

Cheers,
-- 
  ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀   Raphaël Hertzog <hertzog at debian.org>
  ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁
  ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋    The Debian Handbook: https://debian-handbook.info/get/
  ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀   Debian Long Term Support: https://deb.li/LTS
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 523 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/debian-init-diversity/attachments/20211102/cc148e01/attachment.sig>