XPost: linux.debian.bugs.dist

UGFja2FnZTogZGViaWFuLXBvbGljeQpWZXJzaW9uOiA0LjAuMS4wClNldmVyaXR5OiB3aXNobGlz dAoKSGkhCkEgY291cGxlIG9mIHBhY2thZ2VzIHdpdGggIkltcG9ydGFudDogeWVzIiBoYXMganVz dCBoaXQgdW5zdGFibGUgKG1vdW50LApmZGlzaykgLS0gb3IgcmF0aGVyLCBfd291bGRfIGhpdCB1 bnN0YWJsZSBoYWQgZHBrZy1nZW5jb250cm9sIG5vdCBzaWxlbnRseQppZ25vcmVkIHRoaXMgZmll bGQuCgpUaGUgcHJvYmxlbSBpcywgdGhpcyBmaWVsZCBpcyBjdXJyZW50bHkgdW5kb2N1bWVudGVk IGFuZCB1bm9mZmljaWFsLgoKU3VwcG9ydCBpbiBmcm9udGVuZHMgaW4gU3RyZXRjaCBsb29rcyBn b29kIGVub3VnaCwgdGh1cyBJIGJlbGlldmUgdGhlcmUncyBubwpyZWFzb24gdG8gYXZvaWQgdXNp bmcgdGhpcyBmaWVsZCBpbiBCdXN0ZXIuICBJJ3ZlIHRlc3RlZCBhcHQsIGRzZWxlY3QsIGFwdGl0 dWRlLApzeW5hcHRpYywgZ25vbWUtcGFja2FnZWtpdCwgYXBwZXIgLS0gb25seSBuaXQgaXMgbWVz c2FnZXMgdGFsa2luZyBhYm91dAoiZXNzZW50aWFsIiwgYnV0IHRoYXQncyBva2F5aXNoLiAgVGhl cmUgaXMgYSBmcm9udGVuZCB0aGF0IGRvZXNuJ3Qga25vdyB0aGlzCmZpZWxkLCBjdXB0LCBidXQg d2l0aCBwb3Bjb24gdm90ZSAyMywgdGhlIGNyb3NzLXNlY3Rpb24gb2YgcGVvcGxlIHdobyAxLiB0 cnkKdG8gcmVtb3ZlIGFuIEltcG9ydGFudDp5ZXMgcGFja2FnZSwgMi4gdXNlIGN1cHQsIDMuIHVz ZSBTdHJldGNoJ3MgdmVyc2lvbgpvZiB0b29scyB0byByZW1vdmUgYSBCdXN0ZXIncyBwYWNrYWdl LCBpcyBleHBlY3RlZCB0byBiZSBuaWwuCgpPbiB0aGUgb3RoZXIgaGFuZCwgZHBrZyBkb2VzIG5v dCBrbm93IHRoZSBmaWVsZC4gIEl0IHdvbid0IHNheSBhIHdvcmQgdXBvbgpyZW1vdmFsLCBhbmQg ZHBrZy1nZW5jb250cm9sIHNpbGVudGx5IHJlbW92ZXMgaXQuICBDdXJyZW50bHkgdG8gYnVpbGQg c3VjaCBhCnBhY2thZ2UgeW91IG5lZWQgYSBoYWNrIGxpa2U6CgpvdmVycmlkZV9kaF9nZW5jb250 cm9sOgogICAgICAgIGRoX2dlbmNvbnRyb2wKICAgICAgICBzZWQgLWUgJzJpIEltcG9ydGFudDog eWVzJyAtaSBkZWJpYW4vJHtQQUNLQUdFfS9ERUJJQU4vY29udHJvbAoKClRodXMsIHNvbWUgUG9s aWN5IGd1aWRhbmNlIHdvdWxkIGJlIG5pY2UuICBJcyBpdCBsZWdhbCB0byB1c2UgIkltcG9ydGFu dDoKeWVzIiBhdCB0aGlzIG1vbWVudD8KCgpBcyBmYXIgYXMgSSBrbm93LCB0aGUgaW50ZW5kZWQg YmVoYXZpb3VyIGlzIHRvIG1ha2UgYSBwYWNrYWdlOgoqIGVhc3kgdG8gbm90IGluc3RhbGwKKiBo YXJkIHRvIHJlbW92ZQpJZSwgaXQncyBtZWFudCB0byBwcm90ZWN0IHN0dWZmIGxpa2UgImluaXQi IG9yICJtb3VudCIgZnJvbSBiZWluZyByZW1vdmVkLAp3aGlsZSBub3Qgd2FzdGluZyBzcGFjZSBv biBhIGJ1aWxkZCBjaHJvb3Qgb3IgYSBjb250YWluZXIuCkN1cnJlbnQgc3RhdGUgb2YgdGhlIHRo ZXNlIHBhY2thZ2VzIGlzOgoqIG1vdW50OiBJbXBvcnRhbnQ6eWVzLCBEZXBlbmRzOiBwYXRoIGZy b20gYm90aCBzeXN0ZW1kIGFuZAogIHN5c3Zpbml0LWNvcmXihpJpbml0c2NyaXB0cwoqIGluaXQ6 IG5vIHByb3RlY3Rpb24gYXQgYWxsClRodXMgb2J2aW91c2x5ICJpbml0IiB3YW50cyB0aGlzIHRv IGJlIHNldC4KCgotLSBTeXN0ZW0gSW5mb3JtYXRpb246CkRlYmlhbiBSZWxlYXNlOiBidXN0ZXIv c2lkCiAgQVBUIHByZWZlcnMgdW5zdGFibGUtZGVidWcKICBBUFQgcG9saWN5OiAoNTAwLCAndW5z dGFibGUtZGVidWcnKSwgKDUwMCwgJ3Vuc3RhYmxlJyksICg1MDAsICd0ZXN0aW5nJyksICgxNTAs ICdleHBlcmltZW50YWwnKQpBcmNoaXRlY3R1cmU6IGFtZDY0ICh4ODZfNjQpCkZvcmVpZ24gQXJj aGl0ZWN0dXJlczogaTM4NgoKS2VybmVsOiBMaW51eCA0LjEzLjAtcmM1LWRlYnVnLTAwMTIxLWdj NmI1YTVmZDU3N2YgKFNNUCB3LzYgQ1BVIGNvcmVzKQpMb2NhbGU6IExBTkc9Qy5VVEYtOCwgTENf Q1RZUEU9Qy5VVEYtOCAoY2hhcm1hcD1VVEYtOCksIExBTkdVQUdFPUMuVVRGLTggKGNoYXJtYXA9 VVRGLTgpClNoZWxsOiAvYmluL3NoIGxpbmtlZCB0byAvYmluL2Rhc2gKSW5pdDogc3lzdmluaXQg KHZpYSAvc2Jpbi9pbml0KQoKZGViaWFuLXBvbGljeSBkZXBlbmRzIG9uIG5vIHBhY2thZ2VzLgoK ZGViaWFuLXBvbGljeSByZWNvbW1lbmRzIG5vIHBhY2thZ2VzLgoKVmVyc2lvbnMgb2YgcGFja2Fn ZXMgZGViaWFuLXBvbGljeSBzdWdnZXN0czoKcG4gIGRvYy1iYXNlICA8bm9uZT4KCi0tIG5vIGRl YmNvbmYgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24K

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: linux.debian.bugs.dist

Control: block 872587 by 872589

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 02:28:22PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:

On Fri, Aug 18 2017, Adam Borowski wrote:

Thus, some Policy guidance would be nice. Is it legal to use "Important: yes" at this moment?

It wouldn't be up to policy whether it's legal. We document fields in
policy once they are already in use in the archive.

src:util-linux just added it on two of its binaries (mount and fdisk), thus
the field can be said to be in use.

Do you have any idea how long we can expect to wait until dpkg supports
the field? I would suggest that we wait until dpkg has defined
behaviour for the field, as it will make documenting it much easier. It
will also allow us to be more confident that there is no serious
disagreement about the purpose of the field.

Right, let's have dpkg maintainers tell us what they think.

I couldn't find a bug against dpkg, but if there is one, it should
probably be set to block this bug.

872587 < 872589, I filed the Policy one first. Block added.


Meow!
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢰⠒⠀⣿⡁ Vat kind uf sufficiently advanced technology iz dis!? ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ -- Genghis Ht'rok'din
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: linux.debian.bugs.dist

Hello Adam,

Thank you for filing this bug.

On Fri, Aug 18 2017, Adam Borowski wrote:

On the other hand, dpkg does not know the field. It won't say a word upon removal, and dpkg-gencontrol silently removes it.
[...]
Thus, some Policy guidance would be nice. Is it legal to use "Important: yes" at this moment?

It wouldn't be up to policy whether it's legal. We document fields in
policy once they are already in use in the archive.

Do you have any idea how long we can expect to wait until dpkg supports
the field? I would suggest that we wait until dpkg has defined
behaviour for the field, as it will make documenting it much easier. It
will also allow us to be more confident that there is no serious
disagreement about the purpose of the field.

I couldn't find a bug against dpkg, but if there is one, it should
probably be set to block this bug.

--
Sean Whitton

--=-=-Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEm5FwB64DDjbk/CSLaVt65L8GYkAFAlmXW/YACgkQaVt65L8G YkCdig/9EPF7rXvknZjrxe8YTzZjOIyeBpx4EI7Wcxo+CEDSQJ75kVY5uvOoAPkf vjj+JacZtv/Nzyb0u+fui9uoiNgGxIjWSE/hWIwCIThWKy2tSP/0YXy9rf8Swi2a efZe9X9/rrXqCW3ZwTfZLlcAeSPv76EuazA6iDSssBhKc78acFN2YX/Lq4nzIYu6 MS/MOjijrEcbtoKJ446M8zzue2yQPY9xKpADXM44AIvd8pj2p9QiZcElQNH4uw4J 9XblBG4dGRPyCeAltkboudfQqE5C8YVNLceo12BpHBI4xaOfK49MLomTmTo1iVgZ sWuczMwPpp+HY6eKTAk+UlKTtBRa/4pCYT6TBsq2d9JqsPFIcTggMW/9Oa/s//rz bW9mHnAljXgwQSezghVZUz6uC+HWIJ+dQ187jAmsaAkZ6K99b6f3M+2RPQJEZJ8q S5iXorzvB9XwA95o8burL/UG6qDuJcWX8ylxkGaepzWxlUToT6+qPnCOj+DA8QWa Dh2s0/OkdxGcsduynpcIRzNwczTEq2V6GNSIGKELdv8Vndp+Z6GKn2MA2cS4pnSU xqym7LjxkObpzh2CMkxfXfhuQWY5TJnD1z/iRaUCrpDPSZpXvql6ddDmKFe/fb6t nqRLvtDiXvy2JAn7L3OOEGaMiVEoa4trSu4sgk4RlaXd0/9/AbE=k1Dq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: linux.debian.bugs.dist

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 02:28:22PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:

Do you have any idea how long we can expect to wait until dpkg supports
the field? I would suggest that we wait until dpkg has defined
behaviour for the field, as it will make documenting it much easier. It
will also allow us to be more confident that there is no serious
disagreement about the purpose of the field.

If he just want to use the field, no change to dpkg is necessary. dpkg supports user defined fields since at least 15 years, when d-i started
to rely on them. See deb-src-control(5) for information.

Bastian

--
Fascinating, a totally parochial attitude.
-- Spock, "Metamorphosis", stardate 3219.8

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)