Hi Santiago On Fri, 12 Mar 2021 21:33:05 +0100 Santiago Ruano =?iso-8859- 1?Q?Rinc=F3n?= <santiagorr@riseup.net> wrote: > Dear maintainers of the packages that would be removed by the removal of > libcgroup, Checking reverse dependencies... # Broken Depends: cinder: cinder-common → cgroup-tools clsync: clsync → libcgroup1 condor: htcondor → libcgroup1 mininet: mininet → cgroup-tools nova: nova-compute → cgroup-tools vzctl: vzctl [amd64 i386] → libcgroup1 # Broken Build-Depends: clsync: libcgroup-dev condor: libcgroup-dev vzctl: libcgroup-dev > I am taking a look at the above mentioned new version of libcgroup, that > partially supports cgroup2. Would it make sense for your packages to > have in Debian that version of libcgroup (the current git HEAD)? While I appreciate the effort, I feel a bit uneasy about shipping something half-baked like this. Does such an updated libcgroup package actually ensure, that rdeps continue to work? Maybe the packages above need to check, whether they actually need the libcgroup / cgroup-tools dependency. If this was broken for such a long time with noone noticing, maybe dropping that dependency is the better alternative. At least the cgroup-tools dependency looks like something that could be dropped. Michael
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part