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.
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.
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?
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.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 296 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 75:13:47 |
Calls: | 6,657 |
Calls today: | 3 |
Files: | 12,203 |
Messages: | 5,332,641 |
Posted today: | 1 |