[Pkg-shadow-devel] Bug#1068017: util-linux: please ship liblastlog2 packages

[Chris Hofstaedtler]

* Colin Watson <cjwatson at debian.org> [240408 10:55]:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 09:19:09AM +0200, Iker Pedrosa wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 11:48 PM Chris Hofstaedtler <zeha at debian.org> wrote:
> > > util-linux upstream provides three binary objects to be built:
> > > - liblastlog2.so
> > > - pam_lastlog2.so
> > > - lastlog2 (program)
> > >
> > > Debian's PAM policy says to put PAM modules into their own package,
> > > thus libpam-lastlog2. liblastlog2.so would go into the
> > >
> > liblastlog2(-0) package. The lastlog2 program either into its own
> > > lastlog2 package, or elsewhere.
> > >
> > 
> > Please, let's call this pam_lastlog2 and not libpam-lastlog2. AFAIK, all
> > pam modules start with the prefix pam_*.
> 
> The file names do, but the package names almost always start with
> "libpam-".  (Also, Debian package names may not contain "_".)
> 
>   $ apt-file search security/pam_ | grep -v libpam-modules | grep --count ^libpam-
>   68
>   $ apt-file search security/pam_ | grep -v libpam-modules | grep --count ^pam-
>   1
> 
> And the Debian PAM mini-policy says:
> 
>   1) Packages should use the naming scheme of `libpam-<name>' (eg.
>   libpam-ldap).

Indeed. To clarify, because I think there is still some ongoing
confusion regarding binary files and binary packages, here a table:

Debian package name  | (primary) file(s)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
liblastlog2-0        | /usr/lib/.../liblastlog2.so.*
libpam-lastlog2      | /usr/lib/.../pam_lastlog2.so
lastlog2             | /usr/bin/lastlog2 (probably + symlink "last")

I think my biggest open questions for the packaging itself are:

* Which package will pull in lastlog2 and libpam-lastlog2, for
  for upgrades from bookworm?

* Should /usr/bin/lastlog2 be in a separate lastlog2 package or not?

* Should lastlog2 Depend: libpam-lastlog2? Vice versa? Only
  Recommends?

Chris