On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 03:09:26PM +0200, Guilhem Moulin wrote: > Hi Gerrit, > > On Thu, 18 Jun 2015 at 11:23:04 +0000, Gerrit Pape wrote: > > Thanks for the help. I'd be happy to have the initramfs functionality > > split out and maintained separately. If a binary/service split is > > necessary, I'd prefer to have a "dropbear" package with the binaries, > > and a "dropbear-run" package with the service. > > As I mentioned when answering [0] Simon earlier in this thread, the > downside of reusing the “dropbear” name (without an explicit Depends: > dropbear-initramfs) is that users might brick their system when > upgrading. Would you find Adam's solution [1] acceptable, i.e. make > “dropbear” a transitional package depending on both “dropbear-run” > (service) and “dropbear-initramfs”, which both in turn depend on > “dropbear-bin” (binaries). As Adam noted, the “dropbear” name would be > available again in Buster.
Sounds good, yes, I find it acceptable. Thanks again for your work on the packages! Regards, Gerrit. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150618133821.6905.qm...@a53e6efeb2828f.315fe32.mid.smarden.org
