On Wed, Sep 08, 2021 at 02:01:03PM +0200, Ansgar wrote: > So what do you suggest then? Tech-ctte as with merged-/usr? Or a GR? Or > something else?
I propose that the proponents pay the cost. In this case, it is a bit unclear what that means precisely (which likely is the reason they haven't done it already). At the very least though, apt install auto-apt-proxy should continue to work on a default installation in a sensible way. > > * Concerns are ignored. <- This is where we are with https-default. > > It's also where we are with keep-http-as-default. I don't think https resolves any concerns. It's merely best-practice. In the absence of reason not to use https, https should be preferred. As it happens, we figured a reason not to use https. > > Change has a cost. I do not want to pay the cost for either of these > > changes. > > Then we could never change anything. Untrue. You get to choose which changes you want to pay the cost for. For instance, I want Debian to be cross buildable and bootstrappable. Holger, Mattia and a few others want Debian to be reproducible. You don't get to pay the cost for those changes. Change is possible in a way that limits cost for uninterested people. The contentious changes are the ones where the initiators fail to pay the cost. > To keep up with merged-/usr: keeping non-merged-/usr also has a cost. > Nobody wants to pay the cost for it. That is very true. With merged-/usr, I suppose most grief arises from the way the transition was (not) planned and only a minority takes issue with the goal. Helmut
