Bug#994275: Reverting breaking changes in debianutils

Raphael Hertzog hertzog at debian.org
Fri Oct 29 08:57:15 BST 2021

On Sun, 24 Oct 2021, Clint Adams wrote:
> > In any case, a message saying that which is deprecated when in fact
> > `which` will stay around (but maintained in another packages) is not
> > helpful.
> Tell me, what would be helpful?

A coordinated take over of the binary with a proper transition as
recommended by the tech-ctte.

I have sympathy with your reasoning and I can certainly relate to things
that we did 20 years ago, where we happily broke unstable after a release
but we have changed.

Yes, on some aspects we have become more conservative. I certainly wish
to change that, but not by going backwards, but by providing new avenues
to experiment and make large-scale changes without breaking unstable/testing.

> On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 11:50:32AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > As Raphael has mentioned, it's unlikely that when debianutils' which(1)
> > has been replaced with one in another essential or transitively
> > essential package that the new which(1), whether it's the same code or
> > something else, will print deprecation warnings.  And then it seems odd
> > to print them for a while and then stop printing them.
> I find this to be a curious statement.  This implies a contract of
> future behavior that does not exist.

Right, but that's we are doing in Debian when we discuss together and make
plans for further changes and then try to stick to the plan. You seem to
consider Debian as a more "organic entity" that is not controllable and
that you have no chance to influence.

And as often, the reality is somewhere in the middle.

  ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀   Raphaël Hertzog <hertzog at debian.org>
  ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋    The Debian Handbook: https://debian-handbook.info/get/
  ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀   Debian Long Term Support: https://deb.li/LTS

More information about the Debian-init-diversity mailing list