Re: e2fsprogs as Essential: yes?
On Mon, 2017-10-02 at 06:57 -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 11:50:37AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Mon, 2017-10-02 at 06:27 -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 11:03:18AM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > It seems far easier to move them before explicitly dependencies
> > > are added,
> > > rather than after, no?
> > Perhaps `Provides: ` would be an appropriate stop-gap?
> I'm honestly not sure what you're suggesting would provide what.
The e2fsprogs package could "Provides: lsattr", then users can
"Depends: lsattr" instead of "Depends: e2fsprogs".
At a later date if/when lsattr is split out into its own package then
the dependencies do not need updating a second time.