Three candidates vying for Debian project leader

Yeah, your destructive and uncooperative behaviour is really exhaustive.

There is no actual breakage. Apart from a few minor issues that were fixed long ago, everything else is purely theoretical constructions that nobody has ever seen outside of manually-crafted examples in the 3 years this has been the default for new Debian and Ubuntu installations across multiple major releases, and the year or so it has been forcefully enabled for all Ubuntu installations (old and new) starting with 21.10, plus all the manual switches (plus all the other distros that are doing the exact same thing).

The reality is that you personally don't like the change. Which is cool. And it appears you are using your position to try to block it and retroactively justify it using old dpkg bugs, giving yourself a veto over the technical committee. Which is not cool. I for one am happy to defend your constitution-given right not be forced into doing work you don't want to do (including giving support). Detecting and including as metadata in the bug report collecting tool (so that you can refuse support) would have been one thing, but this latest escalation with user-visible prompt on installation/upgrade goes way, way beyond that.

I don't really know about the specifics of what's going on here, so the following is general advice based on what I can see at a superficial glance --

It is really tough to have a technical disagreement with others on your team, and then to have a decision made to go with the option you strongly disfavor. I sympathize. I think this sort of situation likely happens to everyone at some point in their career.

It is certainly tempting to become a roadblock and prevent everyone else from continuing to make their obviously-wrong choice -- hoping that they'll see the error of their ways and ultimately come to agree with you. But, while tempting, being a roadblock is not a good choice. Continuing to fight once the decision has been made does not tend to have any good outcomes.

As you say, it is personally frustrating and exhausting to keep fighting, and, ultimately, it is likely to be destructive to the team/project you care so much about. Either you become burnt out from fighting and leave, or the inability to get anything done makes everyone else go away, or (at least in a non-volunteer org) you end up getting pushed off the project or fired. In all cases, this is a very negative outcome, and probably is disrupting WAY MORE than just the one issue under disagreement.

And what is important to realize is that it's not necessary. You don't need to keep fighting the fight. It's OK to sometimes lose an argument. Even if you are CORRECT in an absolute sense, it's still OK that your option was not chosen -- because it's OK for a project to sometimes make an incorrect choice. Think of the greater good: the continued health of the team/community is ultimately more important than getting your way on a technical choice. Making one sub-optimal technical choice is almost never a disaster, but breaking a team can be.

Ideally, you can "agree to disagree", but fully commit to implementing the chosen solution, doing as much as you possibly can to help the team make the solution the best it possibly CAN be under the constraints given -- even if you continue to believe your preferred option could have been even better.