On Mon, 5 Aug 2024 at 09:39, Marc Haber <mh+debian-packa...@zugschlus.de> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 05, 2024 at 09:25:31AM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > > * Some package, let's call it foobar, reads os-release and changes its > > behaviour according to whether it sees trixie/testing or unstable > > > > * foobar_1.2-3 is in unstable and works correctly there > > > > * The testing migration scripts let it migrate > > > > * trixie's os-release is different from unstable's (this is the essence > > of what Luca is asking for) > > > > * Unfortunately, when it sees trixie's os-release, foobar_1.2-3 behaves > > incorrectly > > > > * Now our mechanisms to avoid regressions in testing have failed to > > prevent a regression, because the regression was never visible to users > > of unstable, and in fact didn't exist until foobar migrated > > That can happen the same way when a package trips over VERSION and > VERSION_ID suddenly appearing. > > While you have a point here, I think that the current state is an > expression of us valueing our toolchain and processes higher than the > needs of users of testing. By having our development repositories out in > the open we are literally inviting people to use it. In fact, that's an > important part of our QA. We should not make life harder for those > people.
That, and also this objection assumes it's impossible to tell them apart right now. It's not, as already shown many times, it just requires to open code annoying Debian-specific workarounds. But if anybody wants, they can do it. I know, because I do it in many places already.
