1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. LINUX.DEBIAN.DEVEL

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

    From Ben Hutchings@21:1/5 to All on Sat May 3 16:10:01 2025
    XPost: linux.debian.kernel

    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.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iQIzBAABCgAdFiEErCspvTSmr92z9o8157/I7JWGEQkFAmgWI3cACgkQ57/I7JWG EQn7QRAAjDqHGp8YkXGfY+YuIbGVQzqHigY9HitTqEIz62qO7LfWpqPP3ZqztiU3 ymIUiuKUF33AF/VdEiW20ae3mulZwc5MHbGO6AkMDSDArqOpFVec1gyCCv51uWSJ 7r6nFEG8gRtTcg4fAvAn5vpNDi873IdHvwaqfU1TdeH4lZ7rAMEZgwdnsVMe6hQH XpKjNCRT5CC12c79jx1YMpWTOnF6rt8BlA18gQePzTYShFwpzJJUzol76rIhd/ig DcljwqIvApHy0Udo0COQQi56sLJualMWVsgJWCCmuaqmnYgyQPl7uLZfVLn3aRQO LlO9AXLkdGqIsd1IaTPgQtsZTJ2WwMYY4VhDdEUXluo8gIAPmomhHk6ftw8l/+0s dyeKgYScOvkpPjmow65h0RKFqz1urQi1AXZhgOhL0whaH5AgMGUwWBdGm0jrfNDd NwaRVksISU5sCFFl6v/spWXOk78dRgU+Tit5rNHh9gSzy2+SouFf0eq/zqGXM1bt TIzvnHKwjnC+RCVFV6ZMe7u5HY887C930NPuAr60ZAWLvZAAAWrKNfisYkX8ywB4 Q7M9ukKmNy3noX0T3dDj+49QHxbpQPRMO7pR7ze/1lICViJbhezK2jTU1iCkcCjY HTuSEYNAje9B9pdHy893XtGtWmSSKNPHATHIkPdCvF3uJ2QYHGE=
    =+nX2
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Allombert@21:1/5 to All on Sun May 4 18:00:01 2025
    XPost: linux.debian.kernel

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Hutchings@21:1/5 to Bill Allombert on Sun May 4 18:50:01 2025
    XPost: linux.debian.kernel

    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'

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iQIzBAABCgAdFiEErCspvTSmr92z9o8157/I7JWGEQkFAmgXmnQACgkQ57/I7JWG EQlr+g/+OsEb7tq208AkxRA9/40OQAnoS/e1pkNaCat8hA41Ank9L4zK5ALsAuoJ kYRVQAH7+SSsTImJwQlQpgYFL4EGicEXsUbnUm9IUl7WLUOVJ9dl5W/nWyqwRm2v INJPNJj5Pb5Z1aBVtO2VbKxbCNzZwb1baub/Ua3dnNVs/NtofgHK2hFdSa3Q02JV jug+Gj1g6zcWYVnHmGqc4zrcNkefiFUoB+IyOWideNQszRJApH4K1XAlXI+F13up wtHexpdt2hOKK6AhgRCCRmzhAqqpDHoQ2X7LdRzQlhHnMjEgqyEDZX2/KQfqtoRD 0GsEug3FBlHcMUySkBVqTs1aXrAosYrNFeRiQcpypVJ211XiTrGx0jlzOFds7amT ahh/L6Z5DG3Tu1Ltb6bFnPZXzN0qx0HKNQ7I9JIC0v0LNSDT/4SIYQv7A5G88ziy s5p5cVRQ8lOuS4twGZzsb5/XMEYP8ouNPaly/0GKDEgBdZWiRLiBZQ2Q0lsOf2EN PGY+H1awzPy4yy+wpi2yQxvV7l7MbTZP3whX4UEi0XHVf6LYvvbPPXtqBxau7ERE XDYE1nriKu9QLTnYkluqQLWBTQL22dthVtD5ft+LVURvka1MR9tr7FePM13iZtTP Ys2EWhhLB2bR4Cu2waxTfAqISpgdE5HuGpjdlHg8IcL9MF56oF4=
    =DqSH
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- Soup
  • From Simon McVittie@21:1/5 to Bill Allombert on Sun May 4 19:20:01 2025
    XPost: linux.debian.kernel

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Helmut Grohne@21:1/5 to Ben Hutchings on Tue May 6 17:40:01 2025
    XPost: linux.debian.kernel

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Hutchings@21:1/5 to Helmut Grohne on Tue May 13 22:50:01 2025
    XPost: linux.debian.kernel

    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.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iQIzBAABCgAdFiEErCspvTSmr92z9o8157/I7JWGEQkFAmgjrrYACgkQ57/I7JWG EQmVtxAAkgY66v/wWJopoa4BWZTUjYhPwue1iPDo9YVK+CUPAEcRkQIU1EP9JJnB IKcpfadsmQe7pK9e5S9svVtqDl1ck1udkEAlzCEQozZ2ESULfkviN+wHY5JeyCA1 vg2RHtlSZg6vmafr1UOVjuSv/JKGJJLt9po5xlxMFetX7juF9epmo/GnhZCZeiPy z2c2Mu0wgnHgBysx9Uym0uVZWmmVhAOojKZHCV33hqT9UiED5QB/qkSs0PVN1/cI oMRo1PmMNA6xC7u9Y2RvOff03O0+6cFePuUD5nNMA1nZfpfo6Nh87NMRkrqWKGMW J9dpv462rPfhexZgYZLFffiT7MXfMVCkC5ANxNkuATnvCqRmuN4pqhpFuaddmgVx 3+vgOmFgJKbWB9QINvYM0iCKknPCRS5JUzr5bKBEeBHWfj3kwv0Qc+d1suisnlFQ wrwWm/Akh0wikeRXl6lqj92X90/7R5eP8o1+Ii5TmkChGYM2pgs6lkxrYwpGo5nL V68pW6dNuTwuYfjpsEh5gZABaCq5x8W+oO6XC/T96k9OmcxIh7T4H67kGZ9CC5gh vWDxGFvJQAhRZZ2Z+JaBatYosC1HV3jDVYxGJ7HzfVinRzBaZ5HRc97Dr3J1Uq+D GTgBxthNaxVnLgm3t8mlVdCrkXSei4+EJB2RI3HnehqgmaNHboc=
    =l85N
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)