Re: Bug#111651: patch to split fsck

[Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>]

On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 03:41:06PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> I think we'll need something like:
> 
>   Package: fsck
>   Essential: yes
>   Pre-Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, libblkid1 (= ${Source-Version}), libuuid1 (= ${Source-Version})
>   Depends: e2fsprogs | fsck-backend
>   Replaces: e2fsprogs (<< first-split-version)
> 
>   Package: e2fsprogs
>   Pre-Depends: fsck
>   Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}
> 
> This guarantees that fsck remains available during upgrades no matter
> what, and ensures that fresh installs are at least possible. This isn't
> optimal, but, given that you have to install one of fsck and a
> fsck-backend after the other, I don't see a better possibility.

I agree, it will probably have to be something like this.

Also missing from the patch was a priority for fsck.  I assume the
fsck package would then become the required package, instead of
e2fsprogs.

> Aside from the base dependency freeze, I think the complexity of this
> change alone marks it as post-sarge.

I agree --- unless if various GR's fail and Sarge gets delayed for
year, at which point presumably we will unfreeze the base system
dependencies.   

						- Ted