On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 14:37:36 +0100 Luca Boccassi <bl...@debian.org> wrote: > On Fri, 2020-07-24 at 15:19 +0200, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote: > > Luca, Helmut, everyone reading at home, > > > > * Luca Boccassi <bl...@debian.org> [200724 15:11]: > > > > PR opened at https://github.com/karelzak/util-linux/pull/1084 > > > > > > PR for dlopen() has been merged and it's part of the 2.36 release which > > > was just uploaded to unstable, so opened another MR to enable it again > > > (in dlopen mode): > > > > > > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/util-linux/-/merge_requests/16 > > > > > > Built locally and confirmed there's no linkage, and thus no dependency, > > > and strace shows libcryptsetup is only loaded if one of the verity > > > options is requested, so there should not be any conflict in the > > > future. > > > > Okay, I see the PR. > > > > However: > > > > 1) Helmut, will this cause problems again for bootstrapping or is > > this fine? > > > > 2) What exactly are we doing this for? What is the usecase for > > Debian? > > 1) Helmut should double-check, but there's no runtime dependency of any > kind (-dev package, pkg-config, linking) and the build-dep is marked as > !stage1, so should all be good on that front as far as I can tell > > 2) it's an end-user feature for anybody (myself being one) wanting to > use verity-protected volumes (integrity checks, possible signature > checks) on their machines > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/admin-guide/device-mapper/verity.html > https://gitlab.com/cryptsetup/cryptsetup/-/wikis/DMVerity
Hello Chris, Helmut reviewed and approved the MR (thanks!)[0], anything else left to do for this? Thank you! -- Kind regards, Luca Boccassi [0] https://salsa.debian.org/debian/util-linux/-/merge_requests/16#note_183169
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
