-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

control: tag -1 help

On Sat, 2025-07-19 at 20:25 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > MWE:
> > > PKG=strongswan; mmdebstrap --chrooted-customize-hook="set -x ; apt -y
> > > install $PKG  && sed -e s/bookworm/trixie/ -i /etc/apt/sources.list &&
> > > apt
> > > update && apt dist-upgrade -y -o Debug::pkgProblemResolver=true && apt -
> > > y
> > > install $PKG" bookworm /dev/null
> > 
> > Hi Lucas, thanks for the report but I'm not too sure what happens here.
> > There's indeed a change in the metapackage dependencies for Bookworm and I
> > had
> > the impression everything was working.
> > 
> > I noticed you used dist-upgrade and not full upgrade. Does that change
> > anything? I'll try to reproduce using the above command line but if you
> > already have a working setup it might be faster for you.
> 
> Hi Yves-Alexis,
> 
> No, it's the same with full-upgrade.

Hey Lucas,

I tried using my pbuilder chroot and it seems that I'm able to reproduce, but
I'm honestly not sure how to fix that. I don't know enough about apt solver to
really understand the debug output.

The strongswan metapackage was indeed updated between Bookworm and Trixie.

In bookworm strongswan pulls strongswan-charon and strongswan-starter
In trixie strongswan pulls charon-systemd and strongswan-swanctl

That's expected and it's especially ok for new installs.

For existing ones it'll likely need administrator action (to port the
configuration) and they're warned by a NEWS.Debian entry (and I think it might
deserve a release note entry as well).

I guess it could be argued that manually upgrading the strongswan metapackage
would be best so the administrator wouldn't be too surprised by the change,
but maybe that's suboptimal for unattended upgrades?

In any case, help would be appreciated on how to interpret apt output and how
to make it accept the removal of strongswan-charon for upgrading the
strongswan metapackage.

Maybe I need to add Replaces: strongswan-charon to the charon-systemd package
but I'm not sure it really express the situation.

Regards,
- -- 
Yves-Alexis
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEE8vi34Qgfo83x35gF3rYcyPpXRFsFAmh8w/4ACgkQ3rYcyPpX
RFu+tgf/Ukb1vV/KaoiyEs3e69lW5meAr7n7DetVdG/tLDgAVZfBlTTna+nJswAR
4Fe/pBI4E/zJ6MSNUSbAWykn36MF5BqTMlMr9OJI25VDOPO7ZtGe+rL4re8NyQXD
VE6uoeJ8CGGl/2Qpo1FSD3c5Iuf391e6AjwcCrWrznXNnLQciXT529oR8ZvgAm6P
Yq4ilNZprsYgBUV2ICgjmo1DwH+CNSp99YKwnKOmRMTRTP1lmeGhc2PGrWkwHEkH
7Lla9qTgpIxuKZgksgTN+k/s+3DQOCJB03LRK5k0ZFZsdgH2xFk4GQl+TPT7incT
eg91eTS5yLoxv5DUxDLDLQe6K0Du+Q==
=v8sK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Reply via email to