On Wed, 2022-09-28 at 15:22 -0400, Zack Weinberg wrote: > On 2022-09-28 3:06 PM, Ansgar wrote: > > On Wed, 2022-09-28 at 14:54 -0400, Zack Weinberg wrote: > > > On 2022-09-28 2:40 PM, Ansgar wrote: > > > > > If I thought there was a bug in some other package that posed > > > > > a > > > > > significant risk of rendering Debian systems unbootable on > > > > > upgrade, I > > > > > would have filed a report against THAT PACKAGE. > > > > > > > > Okay, so I understand this is an arbitrary requirement for > > > > *just* > > > > usrmerge. Any other package may still break the system (as > > > > there are > > > > enough critical packages). > > > > > > I don't understand how you got from what I said to "this is an > > > arbitrary > > > requirement just for usrmerge". > > > > > > It is, in fact, a *non*-arbitrary requirement, spelled out in > > > Policy as > > > such, that applies to *all* packages. "Potentially breaks the > > > entire > > > system (e.g. by rendering it unbootable)" = critical-severity > > > bug. > > > > During upgrades, package dependencies might not be satisfied, there > > is > > no guarantee that non-essential (as in the Policy meaning of > > essential) > > packages work at all, partly-unpacked essential packages are likely > > also interesting. > > > > The system can crash while any of this is the case, not even > > involving > > more complex parts like maintainer scripts. > > > > This obviously also includes boot loaders and similar. > > > > Your requirement is that a system must *never* become unbootable in > > *all* of these states. > > Yes, and furthermore I think Debian has required this for many, many > years.
No, it never did. > > So again: please show that other packages don't have such issues in > > general. > > I do not think it is reasonable for you to ask that I investigate the > possibility of bugs existing in other packages before I file a bug on > your package. If you want to impose requirements on this package that are not imposed elsewhere... Ansgar
