Comment 5 for bug 2023694

Thanks for the review Steve. For runc, I checked the behavior by some manual testing (and also autopkgtest), and also by inspecting the generated binary package. If you unpack the .deb you will see that in control.tar.zst file has no maintainer script:

$ ar -x runc_1.1.4-0ubuntu3.1_amd64.deb
$ tar --use-compress-program=unzstd -xvf control.tar.zst
./
./control
./md5sums

The same applies to the proposed version:

$ ar -x runc_1.1.7-0ubuntu1~23.04.1_amd64.deb
$ tar --use-compress-program=unzstd -xvf control.tar.zst
./
./control
./md5sums

So the maintainer scripts should not be an issue. I also took a look at the content of the package and just the provided binaries are different between those two versions:

$ diff -Nru old/usr/ new/usr/
Os arquivos binários usr/sbin/recvtty e ../new/usr/sbin/recvtty são diferentes
Os arquivos binários usr/sbin/runc e ../new/usr/sbin/runc são diferentes
Os arquivos binários usr/sbin/sd-helper e ../new/usr/sbin/sd-helper são diferentes
Os arquivos binários usr/sbin/seccompagent e ../new/usr/sbin/seccompagent são diferentes
Os arquivos binários usr/share/doc/runc/changelog.Debian.gz e ../new/usr/share/doc/runc/changelog.Debian.gz são diferentes
Os arquivos binários usr/share/doc/runc/README.md.gz e ../new/usr/share/doc/runc/README.md.gz são diferentes

Not sure if that answers your question. If you have any concern or more info let me know.