Hi intigeri, hi Guilhem,
Am 02.04.2017 um 10:10 schrieb Guilhem Moulin:
> On Sun, 02 Apr 2017 at 09:50:55 +0200, intrigeri wrote:
>> So at this point, I suggest this bug is reassigned to cryptsetup, and
>> option 3 is implemented there. But downgrading to non-RC and leaving
>> things as-is seems
On Sun, 2017-04-02 at 15:42 +0200, intrigeri wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Ben Hutchings:
> > How about "Breaks: busybox (<< 1:1.22.0-17~)"? I think that does the
> > job.
(I actually include busybox-static in the Breaks field too.)
> Yes :) At least it'll ensure that busybox, if installed, is the right
>
Hi,
Ben Hutchings:
> How about "Breaks: busybox (<< 1:1.22.0-17~)"? I think that does the
> job.
Yes :) At least it'll ensure that busybox, if installed, is the right
one (which is probably the best we can do as far as initramfs-tools is
concerned). Thanks!
It won't ensure that busybox is
Control: tag -1 pending
On Sun, 2017-04-02 at 09:50 +0200, intrigeri wrote:
[...]
> I see no obvious perfect solution. The options I can think of are:
>
> 1. Keeping things as-is:
> - Affected systems: partial upgrades, systems where Recommends were
> manually disabled; I don't think that
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 pending
Bug #855094 [initramfs-tools-core] initramfs-tools-core: Error on upgrade if
cryptsetup is installed, but a current busybox isn't
Added tag(s) pending.
--
855094: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=855094
Debian Bug Tracking System
Guilhem Moulin:
> I think the proper fix would be to split cryptsetup's initramfs bits to
> a separate package (depending on busybox), cf. #783297. It's
> unfortunate that we didn't implement that in time for Stretch, but
> considering the impact of this, I'd favor downgrading the severity and
>
Hi intrigeri,
On Sun, 02 Apr 2017 at 09:50:55 +0200, intrigeri wrote:
> So at this point, I suggest this bug is reassigned to cryptsetup, and
> option 3 is implemented there. But downgrading to non-RC and leaving
> things as-is seems acceptable to me as well.
>
> Thoughts?
I think the proper
Hi initramfs-tools & cryptsetup maintainers,
initramfs-tools-core has:
Recommends: busybox (>= 1:1.22.0-17~) | busybox-static (>= 1:1.22.0-17~)
… which makes sense since initramfs-tools itself can work
without busybox.
But then indeed, the cryptsetup hook requires busybox. Still,
cryptsetup
Package: initramfs-tools-core
Version: 0.127
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 3.5
I tried a partial upgrade of initramfs-tools, but it failed, complaining that
busybox was too old, see console messages below. The version of busybox
installed at that time was 1:1.22.0-9+deb8u1. I solved
9 matches
Mail list logo
