Debian Bug report logs - #913346
libsane1: Cannot update libsane1

Display info messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Ricardo F. Peliquero" <zhana@lasampa.com.ar>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: libsane1: Cannot update libsane1

Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2018 15:00:54 -0300

Package: libsane1
Version: 1.0.27-3
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable

Dear Maintainer,

libsane1 cannot be updated using aptitude. It seems to be a dependancy
problem.

	libsane1 depends on libsane-common (= 1.0.27-3)

Should it make any sense to change it to this:

        (>= 1.0.27-3)

instead?

Kind regards,

Ricardo Peliquero


-- System Information:
Debian Release: buster/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)

Kernel: Linux 4.18.0-2-686-pae (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=es_AR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=es_AR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=es_AR:es (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: sysvinit (via /sbin/init)

Versions of packages libsane1 depends on:
ii  acl                2.2.52-3+b1
ii  adduser            3.118
ii  libavahi-client3   0.7-4+b1
ii  libavahi-common3   0.7-4+b1
ii  libc6              2.27-8
ii  libgphoto2-6       2.5.20-2
ii  libgphoto2-port12  2.5.20-2
ii  libieee1284-3      0.2.11-13
ii  libjpeg62-turbo    1:1.5.2-2+b1
ii  libsane-common     1.0.27-3
ii  libsnmp30          5.7.3+dfsg-4+b1
ii  libssl1.1          1.1.1-2
ii  libtiff5           4.0.9+git181026-1
ii  libusb-1.0-0       2:1.0.22-2
ii  udev               239-11

Versions of packages libsane1 recommends:
pn  sane-utils  <none>

Versions of packages libsane1 suggests:
pn  avahi-daemon  <none>
ii  hplip         3.18.10+dfsg0-2

-- no debconf information

Message #10 received at 913346@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Amy Kos" <amy@disroot.org>

To: 913346@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Subject: Re: libsane1: Cannot update libsane1

Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 11:58:18 +0000

Control: -1 severity normal


Hi,

libsane1 has been renamed to libsane.

 apt install libsane

will remove libsane1 and install libsane which should resolve your issue.

Cheers,
Amy

Message #17 received at 913346@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofborg@debian.org>

To: 913346@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Subject: Re: libsane1: Cannot update libsane1

Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2018 09:07:05 +0100

Control: -1 severity serious
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> libsane1 has been renamed to libsane.
> 
>  apt install libsane
> 
> will remove libsane1 and install libsane which should resolve your issue.
> 

I beg to disagree, some external packages (mostly deb files from external vendors), are requiring explictly
libsane1 dependency (this is the reason for it being provided in first place), and repacking them to use
libsane is not feasible inside Debian context, so maybe the severity "serious" is appropriate even
if inside the Debian archive there is no such issue.

G.

Message #26 received at 913346@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org>

To: 913346@bugs.debian.org, Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofborg@debian.org>

Subject: Subject: Re: libsane1: Cannot update libsane1

Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2018 16:16:15 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 09:07:05 +0100 Gianfranco Costamagna
<locutusofborg@debian.org> wrote:
> Control: -1 severity serious
> > 
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > libsane1 has been renamed to libsane.
> > 
> >  apt install libsane
> > 
> > will remove libsane1 and install libsane which should resolve your issue.
> > 
> 
> I beg to disagree, some external packages (mostly deb files from external vendors), are requiring explictly
> libsane1 dependency (this is the reason for it being provided in first place), and repacking them to use
> libsane is not feasible inside Debian context,

Well, it's actually the other way around. All 3rd party packages I know
depend on libsane, not the new libsane1 name.

 so maybe the severity "serious" is appropriate even
> if inside the Debian archive there is no such issue.

That said, the new-old libsane *does* provide libsane1, so packages
which actually do depend on libsane1 will not be broken.

It's just that apt (or aptitude) will not automatically replace the old
libsane1 with the new-old libsane on upgrades. One can help apt a bit to
do the right thing e.g. via

# apt full-upgrade libsane

Not sure what the right severity is for this issue and if it's worth
fixing, giving that the real libsane1 package was only ever in unstable
and never made it to testing or a stable release.

Regards,
Michael

-- 
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #39 received at 913346@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jeremy Bicha <jbicha@debian.org>

To: 913346@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org>, Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofborg@debian.org>, "Ricardo F. Peliquero" <zhana@lasampa.com.ar>, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>

Subject: Re: libsane1: Cannot update libsane1

Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2019 17:51:09 -0500

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Control: tags -1 +patch

This issue is more serious for Ubuntu which will need to keep a
libsane1 transitional package around until after 20.04 LTS.

I am attaching the patch I applied in Ubuntu for this issue. Please
consider applying it in Debian too.

Thanks,
Jeremy Bicha

[0002-Add-libsane1-transitional-package.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

Message #46 received at 913346@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Gianfranco <costamagna.gianfranco@gmail.com>

To: 913346@bugs.debian.org

Subject: sane-backends: diff for NMU version 1.0.27-3.2

Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2019 11:36:06 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Control: tags 913346 + pending

Dear maintainer,

I've prepared an NMU for sane-backends (versioned as 1.0.27-3.2) and
uploaded it to DELAYED/15. Please feel free to tell me if I
should delay it longer.

I know this might be seen as a regression, but keeping the package around
for a while doesn't hurt wrt the current status quo (people using testing not
able to upgrade libsane1, people using derivatives not able to use the debian package and so on).

This will end up in bin-new queue

Regards.

Gianfranco

[sane-backends-1.0.27-3.2-nmu.diff (text/x-diff, attachment)]

Message #53 received at 913346@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>

To: Jeremy Bicha <jbicha@debian.org>, 913346@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org>, Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofborg@debian.org>, "Ricardo F. Peliquero" <zhana@lasampa.com.ar>

Subject: Re: libsane1: Cannot update libsane1

Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 16:26:32 +0100

Hello!

On 1/3/19 11:51 PM, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> This issue is more serious for Ubuntu which will need to keep a
> libsane1 transitional package around until after 20.04 LTS.

It's not serious for Debian since the package never entered testing in
the first place.

> I've prepared an NMU for sane-backends (versioned as 1.0.27-3.2) and
> uploaded it to DELAYED/15. Please feel free to tell me if I
> should delay it longer.

I disagree with change as this particular version of sane never left
unstable. Please don't add kludges to support something which is not
supported in the first place.

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaubitz@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Message #58 received at 913346@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>

To: Jeremy Bicha <jbicha@debian.org>, 913346@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org>, Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofborg@debian.org>, "Ricardo F. Peliquero" <zhana@lasampa.com.ar>

Subject: Re: libsane1: Cannot update libsane1

Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 16:31:18 +0100

Control: severity -1 normal

On 1/8/19 4:26 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> It's not serious for Debian since the package never entered testing in
> the first place.

Adjusting severity accordingly.

Please don't set the severity to serious unless providing a reference to
the corresponding chapter in the Debian Policy.

Thanks,
Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaubitz@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Message #65 received at 913346@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jeremy Bicha <jbicha@debian.org>

To: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>

Cc: 913346@bugs.debian.org, Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org>, Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofborg@debian.org>, "Ricardo F. Peliquero" <zhana@lasampa.com.ar>

Subject: Re: libsane1: Cannot update libsane1

Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 10:46:15 -0500

On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 10:26 AM John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
<glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
> It's not serious for Debian since the package never entered testing in
> the first place.
>
> > I've prepared an NMU for sane-backends (versioned as 1.0.27-3.2) and
> > uploaded it to DELAYED/15. Please feel free to tell me if I
> > should delay it longer.
>
> I disagree with change as this particular version of sane never left
> unstable. Please don't add kludges to support something which is not
> supported in the first place.

Are you telling me that it's not supported to be able to smoothly
upgrade unstable?

The issue that the DELAYED NMU fixes is that anyone who installed
sane-backends from unstable during the 3 months before 1.0.27-3.1 was
released are unable to upgrade to 3.1 without manually telling apt how
to do the upgrade.

This is easy to test: just install the 1.0.27-3 binaries (making sure
you don't have any 3.1 stuff) in Buster or Unstable, then try to run
apt dist-upgrade or apt upgrade.

Thanks,
Jeremy Bicha

Message #70 received at 913346@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>

To: Jeremy Bicha <jbicha@debian.org>

Cc: 913346@bugs.debian.org, Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org>, Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofborg@debian.org>, "Ricardo F. Peliquero" <zhana@lasampa.com.ar>

Subject: Re: libsane1: Cannot update libsane1

Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 16:53:47 +0100

On 1/8/19 4:46 PM, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> Are you telling me that it's not supported to be able to smoothly
> upgrade unstable?

If someone is using unstable, I expect them to be able to resolve
such issues themselves. unstable isn't a release, it's a development
version of Debian.

> The issue that the DELAYED NMU fixes is that anyone who installed
> sane-backends from unstable during the 3 months before 1.0.27-3.1 was
> released are unable to upgrade to 3.1 without manually telling apt how
> to do the upgrade.

Yes, I understand and I know that this problem existed on unstable. But
it's easy to fix manually and everyone who uses unstable should be
expected to be able to do that. We have had much more serious issues
in unstable which required manual fixing. I don't think we should include
workarounds for all these issues just to make unstable beginner-friendly.

I don't understand why some users install unstable without understanding
the ramifications of using a development version of Debian.

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaubitz@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Message #75 received at 913346@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofborg@debian.org>

To: Jeremy Bicha <jbicha@debian.org>, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>

Cc: <913346@bugs.debian.org>, Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org>, "Ricardo F. Peliquero" <zhana@lasampa.com.ar>

Subject: Re: libsane1: Cannot update libsane1

Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 08:52:03 +0000 (UTC)

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

 Hello,


>If someone is using unstable, I expect them to be able to resolve
>such issues themselves. unstable isn't a release, it's a development
>version of Debian.

ehm, this bug hit testing too :/
>I don't understand why some users install unstable without understanding>the ramifications of using a development version of Debian.

I honestly never cared about unstable or even experimental, but testing is somethingwe should consider with our upgrade paths...
Anyway, revised debdiff attached :)
G.
  

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

[diff (application/octet-stream, attachment)]

Message #80 received at 913346@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>

To: Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofborg@debian.org>, Jeremy Bicha <jbicha@debian.org>

Cc: 913346@bugs.debian.org, Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org>, "Ricardo F. Peliquero" <zhana@lasampa.com.ar>

Subject: Re: libsane1: Cannot update libsane1

Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 10:08:43 +0100

On 1/21/19 9:52 AM, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
>>If someone is using unstable, I expect them to be able to resolve
>>such issues themselves. unstable isn't a release, it's a development
>>version of Debian.
> 
> ehm, this bug hit testing too :/

No, it didn't. What makes you think so? The version of sane-backends with
the libsane1 package was never migrated to testing, see:

> https://packages.qa.debian.org/s/sane-backends.html

Quoting the testing migration mail:

> FYI: The status of the sane-backends source package
> in Debian's testing distribution has changed.

>  Previous version: 1.0.25-4.1
>  Current version:  1.0.27-3.1

Testing upgraded from 1.0.25-4.1 to 1.0.27-3.1, the rename happened
in 1.0.27-1~experimental1.

>>I don't understand why some users install unstable without understanding
>>the ramifications of using a development version of Debian.
> 
> I honestly never cared about unstable or even experimental, but testing is something
> we should consider with our upgrade paths...

Yes, but testing is not affected. Again, what makes you think so?

If someone pulled the packages from experimental and installed them
into testing, I expect them to know and understand what they were
doing.

It's not Debian's job to support broken local configurations.

> Anyway, revised debdiff attached :)

Please don't. It was never part of testing so there are not kludges
required. And, again, unstable is not guaranteed to be stable, hence
the name.

If someone can point me to the point in the policy where it says that
upgrades and migrations in unstable need to be smooth and without
such issues, I am happy to revise my point of view.

Thanks,
Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaubitz@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Message #85 received at 913346@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jeremy Bicha <jbicha@debian.org>

To: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>

Cc: Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofborg@debian.org>, 913346@bugs.debian.org, Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org>, "Ricardo F. Peliquero" <zhana@lasampa.com.ar>

Subject: Re: libsane1: Cannot update libsane1

Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 08:53:08 -0500

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 4:08 AM John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
<glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
> If someone can point me to the point in the policy where it says that
> upgrades and migrations in unstable need to be smooth and without
> such issues, I am happy to revise my point of view.

Respectfully, Debian Policy doesn't cover every single point. I think
the principle that you should be able to smoothly upgrade unstable is
such an undisputed principle that it hasn't needed to be stated in
Policy yet. piuparts is one tool to monitor that we can install,
uninstall, and upgrade packages smoothly. If a package introduces a
regression caught by piuparts, it is prevented from migrating to
Testing: in other words, it is an RC bug.

We can debate whether this bug is Serious or Important or even
something else, but I don't think it's reasonable to debate whether
there is a bug here or not.

You're welcome to ask the Release Team about this bug. I think they
would support my position.

I apologize that I didn't get around to verifying this bug much sooner
and therefore proposing a fix. This bug is really easy to verify, but
to some extent, the more time that goes by, the more likely that
people running unstable have already manually upgraded this package.

I am attaching an updated patch from Ubuntu. Ubuntu will need to carry
this change until Ubuntu 20.04 LTS is released. Then it can be dropped
from both Debian and Ubuntu.

I think it would be better to just upload this fix now, so we don't
have to worry about getting an exception once we hit the next Buster
Freeze milestone for adding a new binary package.

Thanks,
Jeremy Bicha

[libsane1-transitional-package-updated-20190121.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

Message #90 received at 913346@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofborg@debian.org>

To: Jeremy Bicha <jbicha@debian.org>, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>

Cc: 913346@bugs.debian.org, Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org>, "Ricardo F. Peliquero" <zhana@lasampa.com.ar>

Subject: Re: libsane1: Cannot update libsane1

Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 14:08:47 +0000 (UTC)

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

 Hello John,

>No, it didn't. What makes you think so? The version of sane-backends with
>the libsane1 package was never migrated to testing, see:

you are right, I'm not sure why I missed this :)
If you want to cancel or reschedule my delayed upload, feel free to do it,I still would like to know the maintainer opinion on this.
Ubuntu can carry a delta for one year, or even forever, this is not the pointI'm trying to raise here :)

G.
  

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #95 received at 913346@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>

To: Jeremy Bicha <jbicha@debian.org>

Cc: Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofborg@debian.org>, 913346@bugs.debian.org, Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org>, "Ricardo F. Peliquero" <zhana@lasampa.com.ar>

Subject: Re: libsane1: Cannot update libsane1

Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 15:23:49 +0100

On 1/21/19 2:53 PM, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> Respectfully, Debian Policy doesn't cover every single point. I think
> the principle that you should be able to smoothly upgrade unstable is
> such an undisputed principle that it hasn't needed to be stated in
> Policy yet. piuparts is one tool to monitor that we can install,
> uninstall, and upgrade packages smoothly. If a package introduces a
> regression caught by piuparts, it is prevented from migrating to
> Testing: in other words, it is an RC bug.

There have been so many cases where upgrades were broken in unstable
and users had to fix them manually. You cannot really expect a development
release to be stable at all times. It's simply not possible to avoid
some breakage from time to time in a target which is currently being
developed.

So far, I also haven't seen many reports on this issue. If this was
really so pressing, I'm sure there would have been more reports
than just this single bug report.

> We can debate whether this bug is Serious or Important or even
> something else, but I don't think it's reasonable to debate whether
> there is a bug here or not.

Well, I have a different opinion on that. I do not consider a temporary
issue in unstable a bug affecting anything but developers.

> You're welcome to ask the Release Team about this bug. I think they
> would support my position.

I'm not sure why you are resorting to the Release Team here? What does the
Release Team have to do with unstable which isn't even a release?

> I apologize that I didn't get around to verifying this bug much sooner
> and therefore proposing a fix. This bug is really easy to verify, but
> to some extent, the more time that goes by, the more likely that
> people running unstable have already manually upgraded this package.

I don't think anyone using unstable is still using the old package
as of now. The libsane1 change has already been reverted and most
unstable users are most certainly dist-upgrading their installations
regularly.

> I am attaching an updated patch from Ubuntu. Ubuntu will need to carry
> this change until Ubuntu 20.04 LTS is released. Then it can be dropped
> from both Debian and Ubuntu.

Why is Ubuntu importing packages with RC bugs open? Shouldn't that
be blocked?

> I think it would be better to just upload this fix now, so we don't
> have to worry about getting an exception once we hit the next Buster
> Freeze milestone for adding a new binary package.

The package in question was never part of testing, so there was never
a concern for Buster. I'm not sure why you are arguing with the Buster
release when this the package version in question was never part of
what is going to be Buster in the first place.

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaubitz@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Message #100 received at 913346@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jeremy Bicha <jbicha@debian.org>

To: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>

Cc: Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofborg@debian.org>, 913346@bugs.debian.org, Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org>, "Ricardo F. Peliquero" <zhana@lasampa.com.ar>

Subject: Re: libsane1: Cannot update libsane1

Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 09:47:49 -0500

On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 9:23 AM John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
<glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
> Well, I have a different opinion on that. I do not consider a temporary
> issue in unstable a bug affecting anything but developers.

3 months isn't temporary. While I think Testing is a better fit for
users than Unstable (maybe we agree there), there are huge numbers of
people and writings that argue that users should use Unstable instead
because "Testing has no security guarantees".

> I'm not sure why you are resorting to the Release Team here? What does the
> Release Team have to do with unstable which isn't even a release?

Because you're "appealing to authority" by asking me to prove that
there is a bug here. I think we all agree that the Debian Release Team
can decide what is an RC bug. But I guess you're going to nitpick and
argue that the Release Team has no authority over Unstable and we
shouldn't even consider their opinion then…

> Why is Ubuntu importing packages with RC bugs open? Shouldn't that
> be blocked?

I did block it: Ubuntu itself never had this bug because it was
blocked in the "devel-proposed" section which even developers aren't
supposed to be using.

Let me be more direct here: I don't understand why you are blocking
this bug fix. You don't even have to do the upload yourself: just
apply the patch that has been given and allow Gianfranco to do the
NMU. How does accepting this bugfix hurt anybody?

Thanks,
Jeremy Bicha

Message #107 received at 913346@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofborg@debian.org>

To: 913346@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: libsane1: Cannot update libsane1

Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 09:24:38 +0200

control: close -1

Hello, at the end the rename has been renamed again in experimental so this bug can be closed.

However, since many packages outside Debian might need libsane and not libsane1 I opened a new bug report to track this:

https://bugs.debian.org/962936

G.

On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 09:47:49 -0500 Jeremy Bicha <jbicha@debian.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 9:23 AM John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
> > Well, I have a different opinion on that. I do not consider a temporary
> > issue in unstable a bug affecting anything but developers.
> 
> 3 months isn't temporary. While I think Testing is a better fit for
> users than Unstable (maybe we agree there), there are huge numbers of
> people and writings that argue that users should use Unstable instead
> because "Testing has no security guarantees".
> 
> > I'm not sure why you are resorting to the Release Team here? What does the
> > Release Team have to do with unstable which isn't even a release?
> 
> Because you're "appealing to authority" by asking me to prove that
> there is a bug here. I think we all agree that the Debian Release Team
> can decide what is an RC bug. But I guess you're going to nitpick and
> argue that the Release Team has no authority over Unstable and we
> shouldn't even consider their opinion then…
> 
> > Why is Ubuntu importing packages with RC bugs open? Shouldn't that
> > be blocked?
> 
> I did block it: Ubuntu itself never had this bug because it was
> blocked in the "devel-proposed" section which even developers aren't
> supposed to be using.
> 
> Let me be more direct here: I don't understand why you are blocking
> this bug fix. You don't even have to do the upload yourself: just
> apply the patch that has been given and allow Gianfranco to do the
> NMU. How does accepting this bugfix hurt anybody?
> 
> Thanks,
> Jeremy Bicha
> 
> 

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.