Control: tag -1 pending Hi,
On Sun, 21 Jul 2019 at 12:58:28 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > 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? Yup it's safe to remove 'cryptsetup-run'. cryptsetup <2:2.0.3-1's (≤Stretch) functionalities have been subsumed by the combination of cryptsetup-run and cryptsetup-initramfs between 2:2.0.3-1 and 2:2.0.3-5 (Buster); and the combination of cryptsetup-run and cryptsetup-initramfs since 2:2.0.3-6 (≥Bullseye). > 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. I'm about to upload 2:2.0.3-6 where: * cryptsetup-run is a transitional depending on cryptsetup (like for 2:2.0.3-5); and * cryptsetup is a “real” (non-dummy) package recommending cryptsetup-run. That seems to be enough to avoid triggering cryptsetup-run.prerm with action “remove” upon `apt upgrade --autoremove`, and that also on systems where APT::Install-Recommends is set to ‘no’. The package can be safely removed later, for instance with `deborphan --guess-dummy`. Once Bullseye is released we'll be able to remove the ‘Recommends: cryptsetup-run’, or even cryptsetup-run altogether. Cheers, -- Guilhem.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature