Hi Helmut, On 2024-07-27 10:46, Helmut Grohne wrote: > Hi Aurelien, > > On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 09:36:36PM +0000, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > debian/control.in/libc: add breaks against base-files version not providing > > /usr-merge aliasing symlinks. Closes: #1074368. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > I see you resolved the guestfs issue by adding Breaks. I don't quite > like this outcome and would like to discuss alternative solutions. When > I created these patches, I carefully ensured that the order of upgrades > (base-files vs libc6) would work in both orderings. In adding Breaks you > restrict the ordering and I am already seeing how this makes upgrades > from bookworm to trixie more difficult (due to the imposed ordering). > > My change makes libc6 require something else to provide the aliasing > symbolic links and the added Breaks is one way to ensure their presence. > I argue that the links are already ensured by having essential > init-system-helpers depend on usr-is-merged.
I am fine reverting that change on the glibc side if you believe it's better. But the submitter encountered a real issue... > The failure in libguestfs-tools is a bug there in my opinion. It uses > the host system to construct a VM environment and fails to account for > the aliasing links created by usrmerge or debootstrap not recorded in a > packaging database. This is unfortunate, but not a bug in libc6 as it > correctly explains its requirements (via an implicit dependency on > essential packages). Do you mean we could reassign the bug to libguestfs-tools? And get solve it there instead? > I argue that the risk of running a partially upgraded system and running > libguestfs tests is fairly low at this time as both packages have > migrated and trixie-based images typically have been updated (even in a > monthly cadence) to include all relevant changes. Hence, I argue that at > this time the cost of including this Breaks outweighs its benefits. > > Do you agree with this reasoning? I am also fine to just ignore the bug, but I don't want it to come back at a later stage. Should we maybe get an agreement with the release team that it is not considered as a bug? Regards Aurelien -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B aurel...@aurel32.net http://aurel32.net
