Hello Luca, On Mon 08 May 2023 at 08:07PM +01, Luca Boccassi wrote: > The specific difference, for which I think an explicit call out is > needed, is because these config files are shipped by some packages but > are not used _by_ them, they are consumed by systemd (or udev, or > kmod, etc). Specifically, if package A ships a.service, and package B > overrides it, even if the maintainers of A and B agree, that's still > not good enough for me, as they are really affecting systemd, which is > the consumer and the provider of the interface they are using, and > ultimately the first port of call for bug reports. This is especially > true for udev. > > So in my latest revision of the patch, the general rule is as > requested by Russ and as you mention it, but there is an explicit, > stricter rule to cover this case, which is important to me. Policy > calls out core component software in many places, such as dpkg, and > systemd is already mentioned in other parts of the policy, so it did > not seem too far-fetched to me. I'm afraid I'm not convinced. I'd second a patch where systemd is used as an example of the rule, as I suggested. Thank you for the additional commit regarding kmod. It is good to have been made aware of issue, but let's discuss it in a separate bug after making this change -- the considerations might be quite different. On Tue 09 May 2023 at 12:31AM +01, Luca Boccassi wrote: > On Mon, 08 May 2023 14:14:30 -0700 Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote: > >> Oh, thank you! I had completely forgotten that we said something >> about this under maintainer scripts. >> >> That doesn't entirely cover this case (because systemd and udev may >> not be "that package" in this sense), but it covers much of the >> general case. > > Would you like me to reword/move the new snippet? Yes, thank you. I will review the new version. -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature