Bug#1077764: Ruling request on os-release specification implementation

Hi

On 03-08-2024 11:58, Luca Boccassi wrote:
>> On the use of tpu:
>> Personally, until now I fail to see enough value of being able to
>> distinguish unstable and testing to give the package carrying
>> /etc/os-release a permanent exception via tpu.
> 
> Thanks for chiming in - assuming for a moment that it is decided that
> the change will be implemented, do you see any technical obstacles in
> using t-p-u as proposed?

The biggest reason I know against using tpu is that it currently isn't 
receiving the same amount of testing (be it automatic (autopkgtest, 
piuparts, in the future reproducibility) or human) as 
unstable-to-testing migrations receive. For the automatic part, that's 
obviously a solvable problem (and already on my todo list for YEARS), 
but currently not the case. It also *always* requires human intervention 
by the Release Team. Another issue issue with tpu is that binNMU'ing is 
more difficult (I assume that's probably not very often relevant in the 
current case). I recall there are more issues with tpu, but I have 
forgotten them. When I find them, I'll add them.

Paul

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

wsB5BAABCAAjFiEEWLZtSHNr6TsFLeZynFyZ6wW9dQoFAmauBFoFAwAAAAAACgkQnFyZ6wW9dQrj
WQgApcNEZX9y9CNzm4c7YrhcxDqQsNEU151qRH2j2uF7Hk6EjkT5Bi4LupjVbmltrDxWfkuIjTgw
57ujUbu8n8hLQsEtab/L8Tj9v4xSksA9mZSUyF4AhYX72jHLY1iiuhfANdYOfuuAcFikWg3vH3Wo
AtV/me4j1WnqyKV30J3HHtS/JV5pndv+yxFxqp1G/SeKkkM2u2CuzFnwobHorGGKQZ1FMu6O+ebN
qk+0nJINGWe5Dy40xXJGO+wFNrbFEL7pdDTXv4NLrBf3I88ERiuI5oqLyH1EuYIppRX8Fse9PUC2
ZymuAHViic3T50MfZ/BgL0F1/vwITpI3WcUvgLnKhw==
=wVTU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----