El 25/5/25 a las 14:48, Antonio Terceiro escribió:
Em 24 de maio de 2025 20:59:04 BRT, Alexandre Detiste
<alexandre.deti...@gmail.com> escreveu:
IMO we would need to backport a 3.13 build into bookworm to allow
upgrades to trixie to work, but that would require the stable release
managers to agree to it.
That would break random Bookworm installs in the wild.
Please don't
Can you elaborate on how exactly an upgrade from 3.10 to 3.13 would break
installs? I'm aware that this is usually not done, but in this case upstream
does not support upgrades to 4.0 otherwise.
The alternative is not being able to upgrade to Trixie, unless someone who does
Erlang tries to extract only the very bits that enable the upgrade into 3.10.
What about uploading 3.13 for proposed-updates containing a preinst which asks
the user [*] to explicitly agree to the upgrade? (and fail otherwise).
[*] Probably using debconf so that it may be overridden easily for those
who have a lot of systems to upgrade and have already tested the upgrade.
I remember a similar case (but with some differences) in flex, where the
behavior of the package in woody vs sarge was big enough that the maintainer
considered that the upgrade had to be explicitly acknowledged by the user.
This was initially done in preinst using keyboard input but later
converted to debconf thanks to Joey Hess (see flex version 2.5.31-17
for details).
It seems that we have to choose here the least of several evils.
Thanks.
