Your message dated Tue, 11 Mar 2025 19:45:54 +0000
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: libyubikey-udev: Too strong dependency on udev
has caused the Debian Bug report #1086916,
regarding libyubikey-udev: Too strong dependency on udev
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
1086916: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1086916
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: libyubikey-udev
Version: 1.20.0-4
Severity: important
Hi!
The other day I was building a rust package (rust-sequoia-sq), and
when installing its build dependencies, I ended up with udev and
systemd installed on my sid chroot, due to tpm-udev pulling in udev,
where I noticed this packaging pattern. Checking now all similar -udev
packages I noticed this one.
I can understand the reasoning for the dependency, but it still seems
excessive. On a system with udev installed there's no need for the
dependency, if there is no udev, then this is probably a chroot or
some special purpose installation, where getting daemons installed
through library dependencies might not be appropriate.
Also this seems like the relationship is inverted? This looks more
like an Enhances type of relationship than a Depends.
Please, switch udev from Depends to Enhances. Or alternatively into
Recommends?
Thanks,
Guillem
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
> The other day I was building a rust package (rust-sequoia-sq), and
> when installing its build dependencies, I ended up with udev and
> systemd installed on my sid chroot, due to tpm-udev pulling in udev,
> where I noticed this packaging pattern. Checking now all similar -udev
> packages I noticed this one.
>
> I can understand the reasoning for the dependency, but it still seems
> excessive. On a system with udev installed there's no need for the
> dependency, if there is no udev, then this is probably a chroot or
> some special purpose installation, where getting daemons installed
> through library dependencies might not be appropriate.
I can understand how that might be excessive in the case where there is
a library dependency (as is the case for, say, libtss2-rc0t64 on
tpm-udev). In the case of libyubikey-udev, though, there is no such
dependency there (there's a Recommends from libykpers-1-1, which I think
is appropriate) so you should not end up with udev installed in a
chroot.
I'm closing this bug, but if you disagree with the reasoning, feel free
to reopen and we can discuss it.
Regards,
--
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are
--- End Message ---
