[pkg-cryptsetup-devel] Bug#932625: cryptsetup: removing transitional cryptsetup-run produces scary debconf question

[Simon McVittie]

Package: cryptsetup
Version: 2:2.1.0-5
Severity: normal

My root filesystem is a LVM volume on a dm-crypt/cryptsetup/LUKS encrypted
partition.

When I upgrade from cryptsetup 2:2.1.0-5 to 2:2.1.0-6, aptitude suggests
removing the transitional cryptsetup-run package. However, when I do, I
get this debconf question that suggests that I am doing something wrong,
because cryptsetup-run in buster was not transitional (and cryptsetup was):

  Configuring cryptsetup-run

    This system has unlocked dm-crypt devices: [my dm-crypt device name]

    If these devices are managed with cryptsetup, you might be unable
    to lock the devices after the package removal, though other tools
    can be used for managing dm-crypt devices. Any system shutdown or
    reboot will lock the devices.

    Do not choose this option if you want to lock the dm-crypt devices
    before package removal.

    Continue with cryptsetup removal?

    <Yes> <No>

My understanding is that it's fine for me to remove cryptsetup-run, because
its functionality has been subsumed by the combination of cryptsetup and
cryptsetup-initramfs?

I suspect that swapping the transitional/non-transitional status of two
pre-existing packages is only going to cause confusion on upgrade from
buster to bullseye. It might be more robust to leave cryptsetup-run as
the real package, drop the transitional cryptsetup, and choose one:
either keep that situation indefinitely, or reinstate cryptsetup
(with a transition from cryptsetup-run) in bullseye+1 or later.

    smcv