* Colin Watson <cjwat...@debian.org> [240408 10:55]: > On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 09:19:09AM +0200, Iker Pedrosa wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 11:48 PM Chris Hofstaedtler <z...@debian.org> wrote: > > > util-linux upstream provides three binary objects to be built: > > > - liblastlog2.so > > > - pam_lastlog2.so > > > - lastlog2 (program) > > > > > > Debian's PAM policy says to put PAM modules into their own package, > > > thus libpam-lastlog2. liblastlog2.so would go into the > > > > > liblastlog2(-0) package. The lastlog2 program either into its own > > > lastlog2 package, or elsewhere. > > > > > > > Please, let's call this pam_lastlog2 and not libpam-lastlog2. AFAIK, all > > pam modules start with the prefix pam_*. > > The file names do, but the package names almost always start with > "libpam-". (Also, Debian package names may not contain "_".) > > $ apt-file search security/pam_ | grep -v libpam-modules | grep --count > ^libpam- > 68 > $ apt-file search security/pam_ | grep -v libpam-modules | grep --count > ^pam- > 1 > > And the Debian PAM mini-policy says: > > 1) Packages should use the naming scheme of `libpam-<name>' (eg. > libpam-ldap).
Indeed. To clarify, because I think there is still some ongoing confusion regarding binary files and binary packages, here a table: Debian package name | (primary) file(s) -------------------------------------------------------------------- liblastlog2-0 | /usr/lib/.../liblastlog2.so.* libpam-lastlog2 | /usr/lib/.../pam_lastlog2.so lastlog2 | /usr/bin/lastlog2 (probably + symlink "last") I think my biggest open questions for the packaging itself are: * Which package will pull in lastlog2 and libpam-lastlog2, for for upgrades from bookworm? * Should /usr/bin/lastlog2 be in a separate lastlog2 package or not? * Should lastlog2 Depend: libpam-lastlog2? Vice versa? Only Recommends? Chris
