Hello, On Mon 26 Sep 2022 at 04:48PM -04, Zack Weinberg wrote: > I'm surprised to hear you say that, given that, in the past, the TC > has required bugs of various severities to be filed, and has required > maintainers not to alter bug severities. Almost all of what I'm > asking for would follow "by operation of Policy", as it were, from the > requested s:critical bugs on usrmerge and usr-is-merged; I only > spelled them out for explicitness's sake. And I didn't file the bugs > myself because they would certainly be rejected by the maintainers, > and then I'd have to escalate _that_ to you, so I'm trying to save time > by skipping that step. This isn't about Policy, though, it's about timetabling, as you say downthread, and that's basically why we think the RT is the most relevant decision-making body -- they're the team with the timetables. > In my opinion, a "suitable transition mechanism" _must_ include a fix > for the dpkg bugs, Many TC and RT members basically agree with you, including myself, and lament the lack of integration of merged-/usr with dpkg. That's behind the idea in the RT's d-d-a e-mail where they said (paraphrasing) "the transition is not complete until the work on dpkg is complete." But they decided that less was to be done for bookworm: the transition is to be left incomplete in just this way. -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature