Hi Michael, I appreciate that you chime in here.
On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 11:18:31PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: > We are rather late in the trixie release cycle, so maybe the safest approach > is to revert 8ca2b266789bff0b1af348100e72da7245864174 for trixie and > re-apply it early during the forky release? Could you help me understand why reverting this commit would improve the symptoms of the bug report at hand? I understand that having libsystemd-shared and systemctl can be upgraded separately and that doing so results in yet another window where systemctl is dysfunctional. The problem reported here is about systemctl linking libcrypto.so.3 however. Both bookworm and trixie do that. Therefore my understanding is that the aforementioned commit does not cause the libcrypto.so.3 linkage that is the problem here. Conversely, reverting it will not remove libcrypto.so.3 and therefore will not help with the t64-induced library rename. What I'm trying to argue here is that even if reverting it improves robustness in some way, it does not improve robustness regarding libssl3 to libssl3t64 upgrades. Do you concur here? Helmut
