Am Montag, den 23.11.2020, 19:43 +0100 schrieb Ansgar:
> Michael Biebl writes:
>
>
> > > Maybe udev should have
> > > "Breaks: systemd (!= ${binary:Version})"? But I'm not sure if
> > > that
> > > might result in apt suggesting to remove udev instead.
> >
> > Shouldn't this be the other way around, i.e. systemd having a
> > Breaks: udev (...) to force udev being upgraded along side.
>
> Not sure. I would hope udev having "Breaks: systemd (!=
> ${binary:Version})" and systemd having "Breaks: udev (!=
> ${binary:Version})" to behave similarNot quite. Keep in mind that you upgraded systemd and the old (i.e on dist-upgrades the buster version of) udev doesn't have such a Breaks. > > Have you tested the other combination as well (udev 247 + systemd > > 246)? > > No, just new systemd with old udev. And not intentionally, but just > because I ran `apt -t experimental install systemd` or such. > > > v247 is a bit of a special case with the (incompatible) sticky udev > > tags change. And maybe restricting it to that version is > > sufficient. > > > > I guess I'd be fine if we had systemd with a Breaks: udev (<< 247~) > > dependency. > > That's probably fine given you would like to be able to test having > systemd/udev not in sync. I don't have a strong opinion on this. > > Mostly the packages should be in sync either way (as any suite should > contain the same version of systemd & udev), just when one installs > systemd from a suite with non-standard priority like experimental or > backports one might get out-of-sync. Or when something else blocks > one > of the two updates. In generally I agree that udev and systemd should be in sync (version and architecture wise). Both is not easy to achieve afaics with the given Debian mechanisms. Michael
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
