Aurelien Jarno wrote: > Note that reverted to such an old version will break packages that use > new symbols introduced since then. From a quick look, this is at least: > - dpkg > - erofs-utils > - kmod > > Having dpkg in that list means that such downgrade has to be planned > carefully.
I agree this would be a challanging downgrade. I've tried it myself experimentally and once a downgraded liblzma5 is unpacked, dpkg-deb is broken with missing symbol 'XZ_5.4'. Renaming liblzma5 to something else (liblzma6?) and making dpkg-deb depend on that seems like one way to go that would avoid messy situations. FWIW, I rebuilt xz-utils 5.2.5-2.1~deb11u1 (from bullseye) on sid and then got dpkg to build against that successfully after a few minor changes to dpkg's packaging: --- debian/libdpkg-dev.install.orig 2024-03-30 07:31:46.635365816 -0400 +++ debian/libdpkg-dev.install 2024-03-30 07:34:48.667477725 -0400 @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@ usr/include/dpkg/*.h -usr/lib/*/pkgconfig/libdpkg.pc -usr/lib/*/libdpkg.a +usr/lib/pkgconfig/libdpkg.pc +usr/lib/libdpkg.a usr/share/aclocal/dpkg-*.m4 +usr/lib/libdpkg.la (And after disabling the test suite since changes in xz message output caused a test failure.) -- see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
