On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 00:02:06 +0200 Bill Allombert <ballombe@debian.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 03:16:02PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > 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? > > That simply not how Policy works. > Policy is for promoting interoperability and documenting current practices. > "Policy is not a stick to beat people with" as Manoj used to say. > > If you are suggesting a policy change so that you can report RC bugs on other > packages, you are on the wrong track. No, I am suggesting a policy change so that we do not end up in a messy and unmaintainable situation, which I thought was one of the goals. The current practice is that packages are not using diversions and alternatives to take over systemd files. As I have already specified a number of times, the number of packages that need changes following this change is zero - because I have _already_ done the required work to make it so. After having done this work for Bookwrom, I am translating this current practice into policy, to ensure we don't regress. -- Kind regards, Luca Boccassi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part