Package: cryptsetup Version: 2:2.1.0-5 Severity: normal My root filesystem is a LVM volume on a dm-crypt/cryptsetup/LUKS encrypted partition.
When I upgrade from cryptsetup 2:2.1.0-5 to 2:2.1.0-6, aptitude suggests removing the transitional cryptsetup-run package. However, when I do, I get this debconf question that suggests that I am doing something wrong, because cryptsetup-run in buster was not transitional (and cryptsetup was): Configuring cryptsetup-run This system has unlocked dm-crypt devices: [my dm-crypt device name] If these devices are managed with cryptsetup, you might be unable to lock the devices after the package removal, though other tools can be used for managing dm-crypt devices. Any system shutdown or reboot will lock the devices. Do not choose this option if you want to lock the dm-crypt devices before package removal. Continue with cryptsetup removal? <Yes> <No> My understanding is that it's fine for me to remove cryptsetup-run, because its functionality has been subsumed by the combination of cryptsetup and cryptsetup-initramfs? I suspect that swapping the transitional/non-transitional status of two pre-existing packages is only going to cause confusion on upgrade from buster to bullseye. It might be more robust to leave cryptsetup-run as the real package, drop the transitional cryptsetup, and choose one: either keep that situation indefinitely, or reinstate cryptsetup (with a transition from cryptsetup-run) in bullseye+1 or later. smcv