Hello and thanks for the bug! On Thu, 7 Aug 2025 14:19:07 +0200 Christian Ehrhardt <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mitchell, > I've checked and can confirm your report. > > The question is a bit from which angle you look at openvswitch, using > OVS does in most cases not mean you'd use it with docker. So a > recommends/depends seems too much. > I think the definition of a suggest [1] very much matches how it could > be used with docker. > > But it is not only that, yes there is what you reported: > $ ovs-docker > /usr/bin/ovs-docker: docker not found in $PATH, please install and try again > > But there also is > $ ovs-docker > /usr/bin/ovs-docker: ovs-vsctl not found in $PATH, please install and try > again > > This is rarely seen as one would usually install `openvswitch-switch` > and not directly `openvswitch-common`. But it shows that more is > missing. Having `openvswitch-common` without `openvswitch-switch` is > less likely meaningful. Two ways forward on this: > > a) add to `openvswitch-common` a suggest to `docker.io` and maybe a > recommends to `openvswitch-switch`?
There is the case of docker compatible alternatives though, such as `podman-docker`. I'm not sure if the openvswitch package should declare such a preference until those packages get `Provides` stanzas? Happy to consider adding `openvswitch-switch` as recommends. > b) I wonder how about going a step further separating the ovs-docker > binary into a `openswitch-docker` package, which then is very purpose > clear and should depend on both docker.io` + `openvswitch-switch`? In a similar vein to my response above, declaring a deliberate preference feels out of place here. Would an alternative be to have upstream make the `ovs-docker` script print a friendly message when the `docker` command is not available? -- Frode Nordahl > Pinging Frode what he thinks about that ... > > [1]: https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html > > -- > Christian Ehrhardt > Director of Engineering, Ubuntu Server > Canonical Ltd > >
