Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.kernel > #87334 > unrolled thread

Adding Pre-Depends from linux-image packages to linux-base

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.kernel

Contents

  Adding Pre-Depends from linux-image packages to linux-base Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> - 2025-05-03 16:10 +0200
    Re: Adding Pre-Depends from linux-image packages to linux-base Bill Allombert <ballombe@debian.org> - 2025-05-04 18:00 +0200
      Re: Adding Pre-Depends from linux-image packages to linux-base Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> - 2025-05-04 18:50 +0200
      Re: Adding Pre-Depends from linux-image packages to linux-base Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2025-05-04 19:20 +0200
    Re: Adding Pre-Depends from linux-image packages to linux-base Helmut Grohne <helmut@subdivi.de> - 2025-05-06 17:40 +0200
      Re: Adding Pre-Depends from linux-image packages to linux-base Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> - 2025-05-13 22:50 +0200

#87334 — Adding Pre-Depends from linux-image packages to linux-base

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi all,

I'm proposing to add a linux-run-hooks command to the linux-base package
[1] that will then be used in all maintainer scripts of linux-image
packages [2].  This requires upgrading the current Depends on linux-base
to Pre-Depends.

This message is to start the discussion required by policy for a new use
of Pre-Depends.

Both packages are under kernel team maintenance, and linux-base has
minimal dependencies (debconf | debconf-2.0).  So I don't anticipate
this causing any problems with upgrades.

Ben.

[1] https://salsa.debian.org/kernel-team/linux-base/-/merge_requests/14
[2] https://salsa.debian.org/kernel-team/linux/-/merge_requests/1493

-- 
Ben Hutchings
It is impossible to make anything foolproof
because fools are so ingenious.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#87351

Le Sat, May 03, 2025 at 04:08:55PM +0200, Ben Hutchings a écrit :
> Hi all,
> 
> I'm proposing to add a linux-run-hooks command to the linux-base package
> [1] that will then be used in all maintainer scripts of linux-image
> packages [2].  This requires upgrading the current Depends on linux-base
> to Pre-Depends.

Will that not require a versionned Pre-Depends ?
In that case this is very likely to break upgrade paths.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87352

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sun, 2025-05-04 at 15:58 +0000, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Le Sat, May 03, 2025 at 04:08:55PM +0200, Ben Hutchings a écrit :
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > I'm proposing to add a linux-run-hooks command to the linux-base package
> > [1] that will then be used in all maintainer scripts of linux-image
> > packages [2].  This requires upgrading the current Depends on linux-base
> > to Pre-Depends.
> 
> Will that not require a versionned Pre-Depends ?

Yes.

> In that case this is very likely to break upgrade paths.

How?

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Usenet is essentially a HUGE group of people passing notes in class.
                 - Rachel Kadel, `A Quick Guide to Newsgroup Etiquette'

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87353

On Sun, 04 May 2025 at 15:58:55 +0000, Bill Allombert wrote:
>Le Sat, May 03, 2025 at 04:08:55PM +0200, Ben Hutchings a écrit :
>> I'm proposing to add a linux-run-hooks command to the linux-base package
>> [1] that will then be used in all maintainer scripts of linux-image
>> packages [2].  This requires upgrading the current Depends on linux-base
>> to Pre-Depends.
>
>Will that not require a versionned Pre-Depends ?

I would assume so.

>In that case this is very likely to break upgrade paths.

How so? linux-base has virtually no dependencies - only debconf, which 
is high-Priority and in practice transitively Essential (via util-linux 
and libpam-modules).

Even if linux-base required trixie's debconf, there would be a valid 
upgrade order:

     (debconf's deps) -> debconf -> linux-base -> linux-image-whatever

(But in practice bookworm's debconf is declared as being adequate for 
trixie's linux-base, and debconf itself has no non-Essential dependencies
either.)

     smcv

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87399

Hi Ben,

On Sat, May 03, 2025 at 04:08:55PM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> I'm proposing to add a linux-run-hooks command to the linux-base package
> [1] that will then be used in all maintainer scripts of linux-image
> packages [2].  This requires upgrading the current Depends on linux-base
> to Pre-Depends.

I've looked into the relevant MRs with two questions on my mind.
1. Would the relevant packages be part of larger dependency chains where 
   those Pre-Depends could add undue complexity to an upgrade?
2. How do you handle postrm?

> Both packages are under kernel team maintenance, and linux-base has
> minimal dependencies (debconf | debconf-2.0).  So I don't anticipate
> this causing any problems with upgrades.

Regarding the first question, I concur. Dependencies of linux-base are 
sufficiently trivial to have a low chance of being late and reverse 
dependencies are practically kernel images only. We expect to be able to 
install and uninstall kernel images frequently, so there typically are 
not that much reverse dependencies. From that point of view, I have no 
concern.

Judging from the code, you are aware that presence of linux-base is not 
a given during postrm. In the absence of linux-base, hook execution is 
skipped with a message rather than having things fail. Arguably, 
uninstalling linux-base is an unusual thing to do. Can you give some 
argument why that skipping of postrm hooks (that didn't happen earlier) 
is a good compromise?

Helmut

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87559

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sun, 2025-05-04 at 08:28 +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
[...]
> Judging from the code, you are aware that presence of linux-base is not 
> a given during postrm. In the absence of linux-base, hook execution is 
> skipped with a message rather than having things fail. Arguably, 
> uninstalling linux-base is an unusual thing to do.

Yes, linux-base should be installed on any system that needs an official
kernel package (i.e. it's not a container and doesn't use a custom
kernel) and then should never be removed.

> Can you give some 
> argument why that skipping of postrm hooks (that didn't happen earlier) 
> is a good compromise?

I was working on the basis that a postrm script really must not fail as
this will leave the package in a weird state.  But then skipping those
hooks means that, for example, the initramfs image won't be deleted, and
GRUB won't remove the kernel's menu entry.  I don't know what's worse,
or how much it matters given the unlikeliness of removing linux-base.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Tomorrow will be cancelled due to lack of interest.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.kernel

csiph-web