Re: lvm2 udebs vs. libaio1-udeb (was: Progress on t64 transition -> building the installer in sid)

Hi!

On Thu, 2024-03-21 at 23:13:31 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Cyril Brulebois <[email protected]> (2024-03-21):
> > I'm a bit conflicted about what to do here. At the moment, libaio1-udeb
> > is the only udeb with t64 (at least according to the output of
> > `apt-file search -Iudeb t64`); but a rebuild of the reverse dependencies
> > would be sufficient (and might happen at some point anyway).
> > 
> > For the sake of consistency, I think I'm tempted to suggest a revert of
> > the udeb part (it wasn't renamed so there's a contents vs. package name
> > mismatch anyway).
> 
> Checking libaio's changelog (last mail got sent a little too fast,
> sorry) is enlightening: this library required special attention and
> wasn't just about getting rebuilt with a different package name.
> 
>   https://tracker.debian.org/news/1509816/accepted-libaio-03113-6-source-into-unstable/
> 
> Guillem is absolutely right regarding avoiding the roundtrip to NEW and
> d-i's not caring, but some kind of heads-up to debian-boot@ (now cc'd)
> would have been welcome.

Ah, sorry, the heads-up part didn't cross my mind, as I guess I
assumed transitory breakage was expected as part of that transition,
and that it would auto-heal after the release-team would trigger the
necessary binNMUs. Will try to have that in mind in the future. (I'll
do so as well once/if I revert the libaio SONAME bump, even though there
I'd be planning to add backwards compatibility symlinks if the ABI does
not change from what upstream accepts.)

Thanks,
Guillem