On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 15:23:35 +0200 Bill Allombert <ballombe@debian.org>, Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 01:38:51PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > > The diversion system is made precisely to work around other packages > > behavior, > > > this is a feature not a bug. That it should only be used as last > > resort, I > > > think everyone agree. But when it is, it should not be a RC bug. > > > > This is a technical matter, I'm not sure what 'consensus' means in this > > context? Things _will not work_ as expected by shoe-horning dpkg's > > overrides onto systemd mechanisms, they _will_ break in weird and > > unexpected ways, and we as maintainers _will not support it_ - whether > > somebody else agrees or disagrees with this won't change any of it. > > Consensus is the way the Debian Policy update process works. > But you do not need changes in Policy to report bugs about package that breaks > others, there is the "grave" severity already. That does not help, given currently policy allows it, without changes they could just say "policy allows me, so go fix it yourself". What then? -- Kind regards, Luca Boccassi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part