Re: [Pkg-shadow-devel] Bug#1068017: util-linux: please ship liblastlog2 packages

[Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org>]

On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 09:19:09AM +0200, Iker Pedrosa wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 11:48 PM Chris Hofstaedtler <zeha@debian.org> wrote:
> > util-linux upstream provides three binary objects to be built:
> > - liblastlog2.so
> > - pam_lastlog2.so
> > - lastlog2 (program)
> >
> > Debian's PAM policy says to put PAM modules into their own package,
> > thus libpam-lastlog2. liblastlog2.so would go into the
> >
> liblastlog2(-0) package. The lastlog2 program either into its own
> > lastlog2 package, or elsewhere.
> >
> 
> Please, let's call this pam_lastlog2 and not libpam-lastlog2. AFAIK, all
> pam modules start with the prefix pam_*.

The file names do, but the package names almost always start with
"libpam-".  (Also, Debian package names may not contain "_".)

  $ apt-file search security/pam_ | grep -v libpam-modules | grep --count ^libpam-
  68
  $ apt-file search security/pam_ | grep -v libpam-modules | grep --count ^pam-
  1

And the Debian PAM mini-policy says:

  1) Packages should use the naming scheme of `libpam-<name>' (eg.
  libpam-ldap).

-- 
Colin Watson (he/him)                              [cjwatson@debian.org]