On Fri, 10 Jul 2026 17:01:47 +0100 Colin Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 06:36:01PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 04:17:09PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 11:57:09AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> > What happened is that libselinux got recompiled with the new debhelper
>> > Depends: systemd | systemd-standalone-tmpfiles | systemd-tmpfiles,...
>> > resulting in a circular dependency
>> > libselinux1 -> systemd -> libmount1 -> libselinux1
>>
>> CCing the libselinux maintainer, since one option that's separate from the
>> wider debhelper question might be for it to sed that dependency out of
>> misc:Depends. After all, it apparently didn't have any such dependency
>> before this change,
>>...
>
>The postinst didn't call systemd-tmpfiles unconditionally before.
>
>See #1140654 for background why your suggestion is not an option.
Maybe not exactly as I wrote it, but there are clearly other options
that the libselinux maintainer could potentially use to unblock testing
→ unstable upgrades. For example, since it's pseudo-Essential, it might
be reasonable for libselinux1 to avoid using dh_installtmpfiles and
instead copy the previous dh_installtmpfiles postinst code into its
postinst and install the tmpfiles.d snippet manually.
For that specific pain point:
https://salsa.debian.org/selinux-team/libselinux/-/merge_requests/14
Regards,
--
Gioele Barabucci
