Sean Whitton <spwhit...@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 think must is too strong for alternatives, where I think there are more likely to be package-specific exceptions. But I'd like to take a harder line on diversions, and I do think that matches how we use diversions between two Debian packages (work around some weird situation where we have no better option). -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
