On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 19:39:49 +0200 Bill Allombert <ballombe@debian.org> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 04, 2023 at 12:25:54PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > If you prefer, I can reword the general rule to be stricter, ie: > > "packages must not use diversions where native mechanisms are > > available" or so. Would this be better? > > "native mechanisms" seems to vague. Well, I originally had written precisely what I meant, but was told on this thread to "add normative language for only the general case" instead, so I've done that. That's always going to sound vague. I cannot do both at the same time. As you can see from the latest revision, right now the rule is general but it's immediately followed by a very concrete and documented example. Open to precise suggestions on how to improve it. -- Kind regards, Luca Boccassi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part