On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 at 05:40:10 +0000, jnq...@gmail.com wrote: > edit: ah, so I see there were two reorganisations, one in June 2018 and > one more in June 2019...
More precisely, one two-steps reorganisation with a Debian release in between ;-) > Indeed if I had performed a stable->stable->stable upgrade then I would > not have encountered the error. I only question whether limiting > upgrade compatibility so strictly is the best idea. Especially when a > couple of breaks entries is a such a tiny things for a package to carry > and enhances robustness. As I wrote previously, adding the break isn't the only thing that would have made your upgrade you smooth, the postinst script would like need to be adapted too. While the side effect isn't intentional, not having the Breaks: on older cryptsetups causes dpkg to fail, which I'd argue is better than ending up with a broken (unbootable) systems. Sure, we could test upgrade paths from very old src:cryptsetups, but I'm not personally interested in working on something that we as a project don't support. Not keen about the extra clutter either. So right now I'm leaning towards closing this as ‘wontfix’. :-P -- Guilhem.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature