Thanks to Ben and Jason for following up here. On Wed 2020-03-11 02:52:43 +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote: > We definitely can't add a Provides on "real" kernel packages, because > this breaks auto-removal of old packages.
I'm not sure i understand this. by "real" kernel packages i think you mean something like linux-image-5.4.0-4-amd64. If linux-image-5.5.0-1-amd64 were installed, with such a Provides:, and then linux-image-5.5.0-2-amd64 were installed, also with such a Provides:, then why wouldn't autoremoval of linux-image-5.5.0-1-amd64 still work? The system would still have the Provides: satisfied. Feel free to point me at some piece of Apt or dpkg documentation if i'm missing something obvious. > We could possibly add it to the meta-packages, but there would have to > be a plan for how we can drop it later (and have the Wireguard > user-space just assume the kernel supports it). When we can just assume that the kernel supports it, we might just drop the "wireguard" package entirely, and supply only the "wireguard-tools" package (maybe at that point, we make "wireguard-tools" itself Provide: wireguard). At that point, we certainly wouldn't need the Provides: on the kernel. > We definitely shouldn't accumulate Provides for every component that > was previously packaged out-of-tree. I can see how that would be problematic :) --dkg
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
