On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 07:52:35PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Bill Allombert <ballo...@debian.org> writes: > > On Sun, Jun 04, 2023 at 12:25:54PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > >> If you prefer, I can reword the general rule to be stricter, ie: > >> "packages must not use diversions where native mechanisms are > >> available" or so. Would this be better? > > > "native mechanisms" seems to vague. > > I suggested "must not be used when a suitable override mechanism that > accomplishes the same goal is already available." Does that sound okay? > It's a bit weaker and opens the door to arguments about whether the native > override mechanism accomplishes the same goal, but I think that's a > feature here rather than a bug.
It is fine with me. It is in line with the notion that diversion are a last resort, but not precluded entirely. Cheers, -- Bill. <ballo...@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here.
