Bug#1063504: udhcpc does not Provides: dhcp-client

[Max-Julian Pogner <max-julian@pogner.at>]

Package: udhcpc
Version: 1:1.36.1-6
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: max-julian@pogner.at

Dear Maintainer,


The relationship 'Provides: dhcp-client' seems to be missing from 
udhcpc's DEBIAN/control file.

However, i have a feeling this might be intentional, so i would like
ask the oppinion of the package maintainers.

Considerations:

* https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/virtual-package-names-list.yaml

  This list specifies the virtual package "dhcp-client" as "a DHCP client".
  I could not find a more comprehensive defintion of what does or does not
  fall under said virtual package.

* https://www.debian.org/releases/bookworm/amd64/release-notes/ch-information.en.html#deprecated-components

  isc-dhcp-client is listed as deprecated component of bookworm, and
  udhcpc is mentioned as replacement for the user with the ifupdown
  package.

* The ifupdown (v0.8.41)

  Here the relationship is 'Recommends: isc-dhcp-client | dhcp-client',
  with dhcp-client currently being provided by dhcpcanon, dhcpcd-base,
  and isc-dhcp-client.

* I have found no active or archived bug in bugs.debian.org for the
  udhcpc package or src:busybox package regarding the matter of
  provided virtual package(s) by the udhcpc package.


My Take:

I think that udhcpc should also declare provides dhcp-client if and
when the usage by ifupdown "just works" for the most common real
use-cases.

I am currently testing the replacement of isc-dhcp-client with
udhcpc for my use-case, but am already predetermined to assume that
udhcpc already **is** a drop-in replacement for isc-dhcp-client.

I have only briefly considered the system-wide (as in: other debian
users around the world) impact of adding the Provides. Because ifupdown
still lists isc-dhcp-client as primary choice for dhcp-client, i would
expect that only users explicitly choosing udhcpc are "affected"
insomuch as their choice is not listed as one of the possibilities
instead of them just knowing that this choice also exists.
  Also regarding the system-wide effect, i have briefly looked at the
relationships of other packages recommending dhcp-client:

netctl ... just "Recommends: dhcp-client" without preferred choice.
  How does apt make the actual choice in this case? Just by
  alphabetical order of package names?
madwimax ... "Recommends: dhcp3-client | dhcp-client"
ifupdown-ng ... "Recommends: isc-dhcp-client | dhcp-client"
whereami ... "Depends: perl, fping | iputils-ping | netbase | dhcp-client | isc-dhcp-client"
  I'm not really sure why the dependencies would be like that,
  instead of listing them as Recommends.


So the question finally is: Is there something bad happening if
udhcpc (also) "Provides: dhcp-client"?


best regards,

Max


PS: i created a merge-request in salsa as a company to this bug report.
Would it be better etiquette for this bug to set a patch tag or not?

The URL of the merge request is:
https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/busybox/-/merge_requests/13