On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 12:02:32PM +0100, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote: > > What is the downside? > > It is cost to both dpkg _and_ to the users you are seeking to > protect, and to everyone else maintaining tools or just reading the > dpkg documentation in the future. > > > Why is anyone even bothering to argue against my suggestion? > > I see it like this: adding the option doesn't make anything better. > Users need to do work anyway, so we have not saved them anything. > If the option goes away in the future, they're paying the cost > twice! > > > We could have added this option with a fraction of the effort > > spent on trying to argue that it's not necessary. > > As always it is a tradeoff of supporting the past vs. being able to > keep maintaining the software in question in the future. > > I hope you understand my explanation above. My personal, global > motivation is to avoid adding noise and complexity into a world that > is already complicated enough.
This is not a good line of argumentation, because it cuts both ways: According to that, the option --rules-requires-root should not have been added, and we could argue that the best way to avoid noise and complexity is to avoid breaking backward compatibility. What we should not do, in any case, is to ignore the transition problem. Cheers -- Bill. <ballo...@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here.
