Re: [Pkg-shadow-devel] Bug#1068017: util-linux: please ship liblastlog2 packages
On 2024-04-08 15:46 +0200, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
> To clarify, because I think there is still some ongoing
> confusion regarding binary files and binary packages, here a table:
>
> Debian package name | (primary) file(s)
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> liblastlog2-0 | /usr/lib/.../liblastlog2.so.*
> libpam-lastlog2 | /usr/lib/.../pam_lastlog2.so
> lastlog2 | /usr/bin/lastlog2 (probably + symlink "last")
I think you mean "lastlog" rather than "last" here, the latter displays
wtmp entries.
> I think my biggest open questions for the packaging itself are:
>
> * Which package will pull in lastlog2 and libpam-lastlog2, for
> for upgrades from bookworm?
If lastlog2 takes over the lastlog binary, the logical package seems to
be login which is currently shipping it. The only question is if it
that should be done via Depends or Recommends, I would prefer the latter
to avoid pulling in libsqlite3 in every container/chroot.
> * Should /usr/bin/lastlog2 be in a separate lastlog2 package or not?
It could be in its own package or in util-linux-extra, I have no
particular preference.
> * Should lastlog2 Depend: libpam-lastlog2? Vice versa? Only
> Recommends?
I think lastlog2 needs to depend on libpam-lastlog2, because it is not
useful otherwise. There may be a few cornercases such as having
installed lastlog2 and login or sshd from different architectures, but
then the local admin should know what they are doing and install
libpam-lastlog2 for all architectures. There does not seem to be any
particular reason why libpam-lastlog2 should recommend lastlog2.
Cheers,
Sven
Reply to: