Hi, On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 5:12 AM Michael Biebl <bi...@debian.org> wrote:
> Hi Felipe > > Am 08.09.21 um 19:25 schrieb Michael Biebl: > > systemd-timesyncd was split into a separate binary package in bullseye. > > Transferring the ownership of the conffile from systemd to > > systemd-timesyncd is a tricky business as dpkg does not have native > > support for that and so we need to go behind dpkg's back for that. > > > > We do have some custom maintainer scripts code where we try to preserve > > local modifications: > > > https://salsa.debian.org/systemd-team/systemd/-/blob/debian/master/debian/systemd-timesyncd.postinst > > This code is based on > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=797048 > i.e. > > https://salsa.debian.org/systemd-team/systemd/commit/f5f5028055f25fa733a45265e7c008e06960e0a7 > > A typescript log from an upgrade is attached. > One can see, that systemd-timesyncd.postinst is run before > systemd.postinst and as a result timesyncd.conf.dpkg-bak does not exist > yet. > > Afaics, this could only be fixed with a versioned Pre-Depends on systemd > (>= 245.4-2). I don't think a Depends gives us any guarantees regarding > the order postinst is run? > It should give us the guarantees[1]: > The postinst script may be called in the following ways: > postinst configure most-recently-configured-version > The files contained in the package will be unpacked. > All package dependencies will at least be “Unpacked”. > If there are no circular dependencies involved, > all package dependencies will be configured AFAICS we don't have circular dependencies, but maybe the versioned breaks/replaces + versioned depends makes dpkg think there is one? [1] https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-maintainerscripts.html#summary-of-ways-maintainer-scripts-are-called -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler