On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 3:19 AM Jochen Sprickerhof <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Reinhard, > > * Reinhard Tartler <[email protected]> [2025-07-28 18:55]: > >So, I've locally build a new package with > > > https://salsa.debian.org/go-team/packages/golang-github-golang-protobuf-1-5/-/commit/2739999e3baf72f7e534fccc40918c8d5ce94229 > >included, and it seems that with your test case above, no packages are > held > >back and the upgrade passes. My understanding is that the "Replaces" > >relationship give apt the hint that it is fine to > >remove golang-github-golang-protobuf-1-3-dev, which is the intended > outcome. > > Can you explain how you tested this? > > I tried to reproduce it like this: > > mmdebstrap --chrooted-customize-hook="set -x ; apt -y install > golang-github-denverdino-aliyungo-dev \ > && sed -e s/bookworm/trixie/ -i /etc/apt/sources.list && apt update \ > && sed -i -e 's/Package: > golang-github-golang-protobuf-1-5-dev/&\nBreaks: > golang-github-golang-protobuf-1-3-dev (<< 1.5)\nReplaces: > golang-github-golang-protobuf-1-3-dev (<< 1.5)/' \ > -e 's/Package: protoc-gen-go-1-5/&\nBreaks: > protoc-gen-go-1-3 (<< 1.5)\nReplaces: protoc-gen-go-1-3 (<< 1.5)/' \ > > > /var/lib/apt/lists/deb.debian.org_debian_dists_trixie_main_binary-amd64_Packages > \ > && apt dist-upgrade" bookworm /dev/null > > But still see: > > The following packages have been kept back: > golang-github-denverdino-aliyungo-dev > > Did I miss anything? > I did a slight variation: First I started with: PKG=golang-github-denverdino-aliyungo-dev; mmdebstrap \ --chrooted-customize-hook="set -x ; apt -y install $PKG && sed -e s/bookworm/trixie/ -i /etc/apt/sources.list && apt update" \ --chrooted-customize-hook=bash bookworm /dev/null Then I copied the resulting deb files into /tmp/mmdebstrap.*/packages And added the following to /tmp/mmdebstrap.*/etc/apt/sources.list: deb [trusted=true] file:///packages ./ Also, inside the chroot I created the necessary index files with: apt-ftparchive packages . > Packages apt-ftparchive release . > Release Then, after an `apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade`, I didn't end up with held back packages: root@x1:/packages# apt update Get:1 file:/packages ./ InRelease Ign:1 file:/packages ./ InRelease Get:2 file:/packages ./ Release [816 B] Get:2 file:/packages ./ Release [816 B] Get:3 file:/packages ./ Release.gpg Ign:3 file:/packages ./ Release.gpg Get:4 file:/packages ./ Packages [3385 B] Hit:5 http://security.debian.org/debian-security trixie-security InRelease Hit:6 http://deb.debian.org/debian trixie InRelease Hit:7 http://deb.debian.org/debian trixie-updates InRelease Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree... Done Reading state information... Done 159 packages can be upgraded. Run 'apt list --upgradable' to see them. root@x1:/packages# apt dist-upgrade Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree... Done Reading state information... Done Calculating upgrade... Done The following packages were automatically installed and are no longer required: libapt-pkg6.0 libargon2-1 libc-dev-bin libc6-dev libcrypt-dev libgnutls30 libnsl-dev libnsl2 libprotobuf-dev libprotobuf-lite32t64 libprotobuf32t64 libprotoc32t64 libtasn1-6 libtirpc-dev libunistring2 linux-libc-dev protobuf-compiler protoc-gen-go-1-3 rpcsvc-proto zlib1g-dev Use 'apt autoremove' to remove them. The following packages will be REMOVED: golang-github-golang-protobuf-1-3-dev golang-goprotobuf-dev libdb5.3 libelf1 libext2fs2 libgdbm-compat4 libgdbm6 libhogweed6 libnettle8 libprotobuf-lite32 libprotobuf32 libprotoc32 libreadline8 libssl3 libtirpc3 The following NEW packages will be installed: gcc-14-base golang-github-golang-protobuf-1-5-dev golang-github-google-go-cmp-dev golang-google-protobuf-dev libapt-pkg7.0 libdb5.3t64 libelf1t64 libext2fs2t64 libgdbm-compat4t64 libgdbm6t64 libhogweed6t64 liblastlog2-2 libnettle8t64 libperl5.40 libprotobuf-lite32t64 libprotobuf32t64 libprotoc32t64 libreadline8t64 libsqlite3-0 libssl3t64 libtirpc3t64 libunistring5 login.defs openssl-provider-legacy perl-modules-5.40 sqv The following packages will be upgraded: adduser apt apt-utils base-files base-passwd bash bsdutils coreutils cpio cron cron-daemon-common dash debconf debconf-i18n debian-archive-keyring debianutils diffutils dmidecode dmsetup dpkg e2fsprogs fdisk findutils gcc-12-base golang-github-denverdino-aliyungo-dev gpgv grep gzip hostname ifupdown init init-system-helpers iproute2 iputils-ping isc-dhcp-client isc-dhcp-common kmod less libacl1 libapparmor1 libargon2-1 libattr1 libaudit-common libaudit1 libblkid1 libbpf1 libbsd0 libbz2-1.0 libc-bin libc-dev-bin libc6 libc6-dev libcap-ng0 libcap2 libcap2-bin libcom-err2 libcrypt-dev libcrypt1 libcryptsetup12 libdebconfclient0 libdevmapper1.02.1 libedit2 libfdisk1 libffi8 libfile-find-rule-perl libgcc-s1 libgcrypt20 libgmp10 libgpg-error0 libgssapi-krb5-2 libidn2-0 libip4tc2 libjansson4 libjson-c5 libk5crypto3 libkeyutils1 libkmod2 libkrb5-3 libkrb5support0 liblocale-gettext-perl liblz4-1 liblzma5 libmd0 libmnl0 libmount1 libncursesw6 libnewt0.52 libnftables1 libnftnl11 libnsl-dev libnsl2 libp11-kit0 libpam-modules libpam-modules-bin libpam-runtime libpam0g libpcre2-8-0 libpopt0 libproc2-0 libprotobuf-dev libseccomp2 libselinux1 libsemanage-common libsemanage2 libsepol2 libslang2 libsmartcols1 libss2 libstdc++6 libsystemd-shared libsystemd0 libtasn1-6 libtext-charwidth-perl libtext-iconv-perl libtinfo6 libtirpc-common libtirpc-dev libudev1 libuuid1 libxtables12 libxxhash0 libzstd1 linux-libc-dev login logrotate logsave mawk mount nano ncurses-base ncurses-bin netbase nftables passwd perl perl-base procps protobuf-compiler protoc-gen-go-1-3 readline-common sed sensible-utils systemd systemd-sysv sysvinit-utils tar tasksel tasksel-data tzdata udev usrmerge util-linux util-linux-extra vim-common vim-tiny whiptail zlib1g zlib1g-dev 158 upgraded, 26 newly installed, 15 to remove and 0 not upgraded. Need to get 73.1 MB/73.3 MB of archives. After this operation, 89.1 MB of additional disk space will be used. Do you want to continue? [Y/n] I believe this is a more realistic test than patching the apt internal files, as I don't claim to be an expert on apt internals at all Also note that marking 1-5 replace 1-3 would/could make > golang-gopkg-rethinkdb-rethinkdb-go.v6 FTBFS as I wrote in 1109513#30. > Let's track this separately. I agree that rethinkdb-go.v6 should be ported to [email protected], which has been done upstream in https://github.com/rethinkdb/rethinkdb-go/pull/508 I believe this package has been introduced as a dependency of docker.io at the time, but may not be needed at this point. If that were true, maybe we should remove that package for trixie. > >In fact, all of the packages of the cloned bug no longer > >reference golang-github-golang-protobuf-1-3 at all. However, it is very > >easy to end up with a system that has > golang-github-golang-protobuf-1-3-dev > >installed in bookworm, and we would rather have apt uninstall it for > trixie > >ugprades in favor of golang-github-golang-protobuf-1-5. > > I think the only working way is to finish the 1-5 transition and make > 1-3 a transitional dummy package as per > > https://wiki.debian.org/RenamingPackages > > and as outlined in 1109513#25. > > Cheers Jochen > I can do that, but I'm concerned that this would break packages, such as rethinkdb.v6, which haven't been updated to work with [email protected]. According to https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1109513#25: golang-github-golang-groupcache: golang-github-golang-protobuf-1-3-dev golang-github-spiffe-go-spiffe: protoc-gen-go-1-3 golang-google-appengine: golang-github-golang-protobuf-1-3-dev golang-gopkg-rethinkdb-rethinkdb-go.v6: golang-github-golang-protobuf-1-3-dev protoc-gen-go-1-3 golang-protobuf-extensions: golang-github-golang-protobuf-1-3-dev golang-v2ray-core: protoc-gen-go-1-3 seems that those packages get broken by mechanically replacing 1.5 for 1.3, and may require additional changes. I can look into that a bit more. In the meantime, are you sure that adding the Replaces/Breaks isn't sufficient for apt to remove the unneeded golang-github-golang-protobuf-1-3-dev package? I wonder why my test case indicates that it would be fine? -- regards, Reinhard
