Andreas, Thanks for your thoughts on this.
On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 06:16:08PM +0200, Andreas Henriksson wrote: > Since initscripts will need (and has) Breaks/Replaces: util-linux-extra > the circular nature of util-linux-extra having the same makes me think > this is something which might be useful to think about a second time. > Additionally, util-linux-extra might not even be installed on users > system now that it's no longer pseudo-essential.... If we want to > prevent (sysvinit) users from partially upgrading util-linux-extra > and lack the hwclock machinery, then we likely also want to prevent > them from deinstalling util-linux-extra which would have the same > result. I don't think the hwclock machinery is universally required on non-systemd init systems: all of my systems are non-systemd and none have util-linux-extra installed but run one of the time-daemon providers. Bin:initscripts is installed on all non-systemd systems by being a dependency of sysvinit-core and runit-init and itself depending on sysv-rc | openrc. I see 2 scenarios we need to enforce with the dependencies:- 1) Avoid dpkg attempting installation of packages with conflicting files 2) Ensure users who might use the hwclock machinery (i.e. currently have util-linux-extra installed) continue to have it available I think 1) is covered by the Breaks/Replaces. 2) is addressed by apt's preference to upgrade rather than remove packages. Despite the circular nature of both util-linux-extra and initscripts having reciprocal breaks that you identify, it is the recommendation in the Package Transition Wiki[1]. I think we are dealing with scenario #9. With best wishes. Mark [1] https://wiki.debian.org/PackageTransition
