On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 03:16:02PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote: > On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 15:23:35 +0200 Bill Allombert <ballo...@debian.org>, > Luca Boccassi <bl...@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. Cheers, -- Bill. <ballo...@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here.
