Hello, On Tue 06 Jun 2023 at 12:16PM +01, Luca Boccassi wrote: > My understanding is that "should" is effectively optional, ie: it is > not enough to make a package rc-buggy, and while they are generally > followed, there is no actual hard requirement to do so. That is not > enough for me and for this use case. So again my goal here is to make > an hypothetical future dpkg-divert or alternative of a unit file > (wherever it is shipped from) instantly and unambiguously rc-buggy, > with no leeway (again there are no longer any such cases in the > archive as of bookworm, so nothing is affected). If you can suggest an > alternative appropriate wording that can achieve the same effect, that > would be fine to me - I don't mind how it's written, as long as it > meets this requirement. We have more than two bug severities in the BTS and more than two levels of normative language in Policy. It's simply untrue that all but one of each of those is optional. Debian's normative landscape is more complex than that. -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature