> It also doesn't work in practice because I have to do most of the diagnosis before I find it if it's my bug or Debian's.
No, you ask that first and if it's a downstream package you stop working on it. If the downstream maintainer determines that it is on your end and not theirs, then you can pick it back up.
> The only real solution is for Debian to be better at working with upstream, and not do things they've been told are going to cause problems, and not drop the ball when they do.
Assuming that "working with upstream" means "adopting upstream code in direct contravention of their own policies": If your solution depends on Debian not being Debian, then it's unlikely to work.
> No, you ask that first and if it's a downstream package you stop working on it. If the downstream maintainer determines that it is on your end and not theirs, then you can pick it back up.
They're not going to devote that kind of time. That just means bugs not getting looked at or fixed.
> Assuming that "working with upstream" means "adopting upstream code in direct contravention of their own policies": If your solution depends on Debian not being Debian, then it's unlikely to work.
I'm not sure why you think that policies that are causing problems shouldn't change.
Again: they volunteered to package it, they did it badly and users were affected. Until they can get their act together, bcachefs-tools won't be in Debian.
That's ok. There are other distros, and there's no rush.
No, you ask that first and if it's a downstream package you stop working on it. If the downstream maintainer determines that it is on your end and not theirs, then you can pick it back up.
> The only real solution is for Debian to be better at working with upstream, and not do things they've been told are going to cause problems, and not drop the ball when they do.
Assuming that "working with upstream" means "adopting upstream code in direct contravention of their own policies": If your solution depends on Debian not being Debian, then it's unlikely to work.