[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#1035733: debian -policy: packages must not use dpkg-divert to override default systemd configuraton files



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


Reply to: