Hi, On Wed, 15 Mar 2023 at 22:43:31 +0100, Bastian Germann wrote: > Am 15.03.23 um 22:39 schrieb Paul Gevers: >> Do I understand correctly that: >> 1) argon2 in testing isn't affected >> 2) this bug isn't solved yet, despite the closure? >> 3) the issue for cryptsetup is worked around in cryptsetup >> >> libargon2-1 is linked by more packages. Are they all OK without this >> unintentional change unfixed? Why is the unintentional change not >> reverted or fixed? > > There is no unintentional change.
Yes there is, namely the fact that libargon2-1 no longer links against libpthread, which in turn caused a major regression in cryptsetup-initramfs (mitigated in src:cryptsetup 2:2.6.1-2). Unlike what I initially claimed in #1014110's msg#20 that change can't be reverted or fixed in src:argon2 since it's caused by building with a newer libc; a binNMU would therefore have caused the same regression, it was just unfortunate timing to dust up the package and upload just before the hard freeze. > If packages are waiting for argon2 then I would prefer an unblock of > both argon2 and cryptsetup at the same time. More importantly, argon2 >>0~20190702-0.1 should not be allowed in bookworm before cryptsetup >=2:2.6.1-2, as doing so would make systems using cryptsetup-initramfs (such an those using “encrypted LVM” layout from d-i) unbootable. cryptsetup can transition before argon2 though, and I do intend to file an unblock request for it given -3 mitigates #1028250. Bastien, since argon2 and cryptsetup likely won't enter testing at the same time (which is was I hoped to do with that bug clone dance, but that failed for the reasons you described) you might want to upload a new version with ‘Breaks: cryptsetup-initramfs (<<2:2.6.1-2)’. If you want something newer than 0~20171227-0.3 in bookworm, that is. (As far as cryptsetup is concerned it's fine to ship bookworm with argon2=0~20171227-0.3 and cryptsetup=2:2.6.1-3.) Cheers -- Guilhem.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
