Bug#1035733: debian -policy: packages must not use dpkg-divert to override default systemd configuraton files
On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 07:56:14PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> writes:
>
> > I think what's a bit peculiar here is using "must" for a case where
> > there might be package-specific exceptions. In other cases, Policy uses
> > "should" for these cases. Typically "must" rules are simple and
> > completely determinate.
>
> I prefer that too, but in this case, it feels like must is appropriate for
> at least systemd configuration files. And also, just intuitively, I feel
> like must is correct when people are using diversions rather than a native
> mechanism. Diversions add weird edge cases and we really shouldn't be
> using them lightly.
>
> The wording I proposed and that Luca has now adopted therefore uses must
> with a caveat. Does that sound okay to you?
I do not think appropriate for the policy to list systemd or any
other packages specifically in this section.
If a package set up a diversion that breaks another, then it is buggy,
whatever policy say. If the diversion does not cause any breakage, there is
no purpose for policy to declare it a RC bug.
In general, policy proscription are only useful when the description of a
better mechanism is provided. But there is no place for that in this section.
It would more suitable to have a separate section or document defining the
interface between systemd and other packages, that would explain how to avoid
diversion by providing better solutions rather than direct proscriptions, with
more details than just "use native systemd configuration files".
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
Reply to: