On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 12:16:39PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > > local administrators and local packages to override the behaviour of > > > Debian. Its use between Debian packages should be rare, should involve > > > coordination between the packages and their maintainers, and must only > > > be used to solve problems that cannot be handled through other > > > facilities or native mechanisms. In other words, packages in Debian > > > must not divert a file from another package unless this is arranged > > > cooperatively between the packages to solve some specific and unusual > > > problem. > > > > How about: > > > > Diversions and alternatives are primarily tools for local > > administrators and local packages to override Debian's default > > behaviour. Maintainers should prefer to use other, package-specific > > facilities for overriding configuration, such as systemd's unit file > > overrides, wherever possible. > > > > If diversions and alternatives are to be used, maintainers should > > co-ordinate with the maintainers of all the packages involved. For > > example, configuration files used by systemd components should not > > be diverted with dpkg-divert or the alternatives system without > > agreement between not only the maintainers of the packages that ship > > the files, but also the maintainers of the relevant systemd > > components. > > As above, as long as this wording makes any offending package > rc-buggy, it's fine by me, but my understanding is that using 'should' > doesn't guarantee that. Please correct me if I'm wrong here.
I do not think there is consensus that this should be a RC bug outside of a case by case basis. It is already awkward to mention systemd explicitly in this paragraph. 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. Cheers, -- Bill. <ballo...@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here.
