Devuan bug report logs - #376
eudev: Missing version matched libudev1 transitional package prevents debootstrap

Reply or subscribe to this bug.

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.devuan.org (full text, mbox, reply):

Package: eudev
Version: 3.2.9-3
Severity: grave

Svante,

(filling a bug as I couldn't raise you on #devuan-dev)

I have noticed that debootstrapping ceres is broken. I think this is caused by
eudev.

The error is 

 libeudev1:amd64 conflicts with libudev1 (<< 1:3.2.9-3)
 libudev1:amd64 (version 1:3.2.7+devuan1.1) is to be installed.

I think the issue is because there is no version matched libudev1 transitional
package present. So libudev1 is still an old version. We need to have a libudev1
package to avoid getting debian's libudev1 merged by amprolla. But it needs to
be version matched to the Conflicts/Replaces in libeudev1.

Does that make sense?

Thanks.

Mark

Message #10 received at 376@bugs.devuan.org (full text, mbox, reply):

Svante,

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 07:29:03PM -0100, Where all about bugs in Devuan packages is reported wrote:
> Hi Mark. Of course things like this hoppens when I’m AFK. We need to create
> transitional packages of udev and libudev1 too. 1:3.2.9-3. Alternately
> hardcode the dependencies for eudev to the old transitional packages. Please
> if You have time do the changes. Otherwise I can do that bit not until end of
> next week.

Thanks.

Do you have any memory of why the transitional packages are in a separate udev
source? It seems overly complex to me, particularly with respect to keepeing the
versions numbers in sync.

Alternatively, dose eudev need versioned Conflicts/Provides/Replaces? If they
were unversioned, there would be no need to sync the eudev and udev package
versions.

There may be good reasons for the way it is. If so, my apologies. However,
reading the git committs it is not apparent why these choices have been made.

Thanks

Mark

Message #15 received at 376@bugs.devuan.org (full text, mbox, reply):

Hi again Mark. I’m answering inline,

Skickat från min iPad

> 18 jan. 2020 kl. 09:13 skrev Mark Hindley <mark@hindley.org.uk>:
> 
> Svante,
> 
>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 07:29:03PM -0100, Where all about bugs in Devuan packages is reported wrote:
>> Hi Mark. Of course things like this hoppens when I’m AFK. We need to create
>> transitional packages of udev and libudev1 too. 1:3.2.9-3. Alternately
>> hardcode the dependencies for eudev to the old transitional packages. Please
>> if You have time do the changes. Otherwise I can do that bit not until end of
>> next week.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Do you have any memory of why the transitional packages are in a separate udev
> source? It seems overly complex to me, particularly with respect to keepeing the
> versions numbers in sync.
> 
Well the udev tranistional packages need an epoch to enable installation of eudev from udev systems. Using an epoch makes them newer than any udev version like 243. As they depend on eudev packages it makes installation of eudev from debian jessie, stretch, buster etc.

> Alternatively, dose eudev need versioned Conflicts/Provides/Replaces? If they
> were unversioned, there would be no need to sync the eudev and udev package
> versions.
> 
I cannot view the source packages from here, sorry. Maybe You are right that they are versioned. If so we might make them unversioned so they don’t have to be upgraded in lockstep. 

> There may be good reasons for the way it is. If so, my apologies. However,
> reading the git committs it is not apparent why these choices have been made.

See above.

> Thanks

Thank You too.

Message #20 received at 376-close@bugs.devuan.org (full text, mbox, reply):

Fixed by eudev-3.2.9-4 (and udev-1:3.2.9+devuan4), closing

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.