On 28 Jul 2024 15:08 +0200, from er...@rail.eu.org (Erwan David): > Le 28/07/2024 à 14:28, allan a écrit : >> I would agree with you *if* the change had been publicized. > > [...] But in my view it is a bug to remove something else than > the symlink even with the same name
At the risk of repeating myself from elsewhere lately on this mailing list. This whole thread is about Debian _Unstable_. Unstable can be EXACTLY what it says on the tin. _Sid breaks toys._ When Unstable breaks, as the saying goes, you get to keep both pieces. (The value of having regular backups is not restricted to those running Unstable.) By all means, file a bug report against the relevant package so that this can be tracked and fixed. (Actually, _please_ do, if one doesn't already exist.) I agree that this should be fixed, preferably before the change makes it into Testing. Posting on debian-user is not how one files a bug report, however. And posting on debian-user with a bombastic Subject line which implies that this is a widespread issue when it really only seems to exist in Unstable is, quite frankly, in my opinion at best dishonest. -- Michael Kjörling 🔗 https://michael.kjorling.se “Remember when, on the Internet, nobody cared that you were a dog?”
