Re: e2fsprogs as Essential: yes?
On Sun, Oct 01, 2017 at 05:01:41PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> If e2fsprogs goes non-essential I'd rather see a new package for the
> filesystem-indpendent parts than have random packages depending on
> "ext2/ext3/ext4 file system utilities" because they want chattr. (Side note:
> if the fs-independent programs aren't spun off to a new package, the
> description really should be updated to make it clear that there's stuff in
> there that isn't specific to ext2/3/4.)
This is a fair point, but I think the perfect is the enemy of the good.
I agree that moving badblocks, lsattr and chattr to another package or
inside src:util-linux is something worth to consider. Yet, it feels like
a secondary thought to me. It is not something I will drive.
Once e2fsprogs is non-essential, you'll know exactly which packages to
look at for finding users of these tools, so we can simply do in two
steps.
Look, we started considering optional e2fsprogs in 2011. Work is ongoing
for 6 years now. If we ever want to finish, we need to do it in small
steps rather than pulling more issues into it.
The question should be: "Do we face negative consequences in doing so?"
rather than "What else can we fix about e2fsprogs?".
Helmut
Reply to: