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 ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀
