Bug#1035733: debian -policy: packages must not use dpkg-divert to override default systemd configuraton files
I think your X-Debbugs-Cc was syntactically invalid and thus didn't work.
I manually added in the other addresses in this reply.
Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> writes:
> It has come to my attention that there is one package in Debian using
> dpkg-divert to mask a systemd configuration file (an udev rule).
> Speaking as one of the maintainers, both upstream and downstream, I find
> this greatly undesirable for several reasons that I will outline
> later. Hence I would like to propose explicitly mentioning that
> dpkg-divert must not be used for systemd configuration files (units,
> rules, etc), and instead the supported workflow (drop-ins, masking, etc)
> must be used, both by packages and administrators. This is already
> standard practice, and again there is only one instance that needs
> correcting as far as I understand, and I have already provided a bug and
> a MR for that [1][2]. So the impact of this policy change should be
> minimal, and it's mostly to ensure more such instances are accidentally
> added in the future.
> I have a draft policy update, that adds a paragraph to the dpkg-divert
> section of the policy. It is attached here, and also available on Salsa
> on my fork [3].
The part of Policy that you edited with this patch is basically
unmaintained and should ideally be removed in favor of actual Policy. (I
had started looking at that a long time ago and then never finished.) All
of those appendices from the old packaging manual predate better
documentation maintained elsewhere (such as in the dpkg package) and are
ambiguous with regards to whether they set requirements for Debian
packages, document things for local administrators, or something else.
The Policy manual warns that they may not be normative, and people often
don't think to read them (for good reason).
In the case of diversions, while I certainly agree with your proposed
rule, I suspect Policy should say something stronger and more general,
namely that no package in Debian should divert a file from another package
unless this is arranged cooperatively between the packages to solve some
specific (unusual) problem. To me, this feels similar to the case of one
package modifying the configuration files of another package, where we
explicitly prohibit one package modifying the configuration of another
package except through an interface provided by the package whose
configuration is being modified.
In other words, dpkg-divert is primarily for local administrators,
non-Policy-compliant local packages that are doing unusual things, and the
occasional rare problem that requires special coordination between
packages, not something that Debian packages should be doing to other
packages without explicit coordination.
The rule about systemd and udev files doesn't entirely fall out of that
statement, so we can still include a specific statement about them, noting
that drop-ins and masking make dpkg-divert unnecessary (and those
facilities produce better tool behavior) and therefore it should not be
used.
So, ideally, the way I'd prefer to move forward is for us to add a new
section to the main Policy manual on diversions (probably 10.11), document
that this is primarily a tool for local administrators and local packages
to override the behavior of Debian, and that its use between Debian
packages should be rare, should involve coordination between the packages,
and should only be used to solve problems that cannot be handled through
other facilities such as alternatives or package-specific tools like
systemd's support for drop-ins and masking. And then explicitly call out
systemd and udev configuration as cases where dpkg-divert should not be
used, alongside conffiles and critical system files.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: