Re: [Pkg-shadow-devel] Bug#1068017: util-linux: please ship liblastlog2 packages
- To: Iker Pedrosa <ipedrosa@redhat.com>
- Cc: Chris Hofstaedtler <zeha@debian.org>, 1068017@bugs.debian.org, Sven Joachim <svenjoac@gmx.de>, Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>, Steve Langasek <steve.langasek@ubuntu.com>, debian-ssh@lists.debian.org, pkg-shadow-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
- Subject: Re: [Pkg-shadow-devel] Bug#1068017: util-linux: please ship liblastlog2 packages
- From: Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org>
- Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 09:55:04 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] ZhOw6Gn-0QYlgDBJ@riva.ucam.org>
- Mail-followup-to: Iker Pedrosa <ipedrosa@redhat.com>, Chris Hofstaedtler <zeha@debian.org>, 1068017@bugs.debian.org, Sven Joachim <svenjoac@gmx.de>, Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>, Steve Langasek <steve.langasek@ubuntu.com>, debian-ssh@lists.debian.org, pkg-shadow-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] CAHc++QgXkwLrtAd4X1BzvK6EX_HY_2vawtkt8z0CdcM_AAZGUQ@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <874jcpotsg.fsf@turtle.gmx.de> <ZgddiOcDzPKZY5Dn@per> <ZgdfxDOWR0-ZwaV0@per> <[🔎] hyl4fxi636dhjtemsod2nixxv7mtopj33de6kvo5rory3ytnlx@psumzhox35xu> <[🔎] CAHc++Qi+=Rh50dMDBJmDU9Sr=0WsTF4-YW-e3BsJsrxV04Mcrg@mail.gmail.com> <[🔎] iwkaj65bfjzvcpuh535siyqf4kxwasppe5dzsujl45are5synj@s5j7x5ljyxys> <[🔎] CAHc++QgXkwLrtAd4X1BzvK6EX_HY_2vawtkt8z0CdcM_AAZGUQ@mail.gmail.com>
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]
Reply to: