Hi Marc, These are my own opinions and not a formal statement of the CTTE.
On Sun, Jan 04, 2026 at 06:59:12AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > Of course, people now demand that fix in Trixie as well (see #1004894). I > expected this to happen. People are never satisfied with what they get. What > does the ctte think about that? Our release notes have been very explicit about unsupporting i386. The discussion seems to have reached a point where it is clear that Debian does not support the configuration in question. That said, making software work outside the specification that we consider supported can be valuable. It then becomes a question of trading costs (risks) and effort against benefit. A sudo update is not free of charge. You lowered the severity of the bug to minor and given the unsupported configuration that feels appropriate to me. If the submitter is providing an improvement (bearing part of the cost) and the cost of including such an improvement is acceptable, then by all means do it. What is acceptable is the interesting question here. Asking the release team to review another stable update would exceed the cost in my opinion (not considering your own effort here). In contrast, piggy-backing the change onto an update of sudo for other reasons would seem ok-ish to me, because the risks are now very well understood. You may evaluate the costs differently than I do and reach the conclusion that the update is not worth the effort (as you closed the bug wontfix). Saying "no" is part of a maintainers duties and in this instance I would have difficulties challenging your "no". Indeed, one reason that made me recommend fixing bookworm was that it was the last release to support i386 as a standalone architecture, so people would likely end up being stuck on bookworm. Helmut
