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
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
