Re: e2fsprogs as Essential: yes?
Hello Felipe, Helmut,
On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 01:20:55PM +0000, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, 01 Oct 2017 00:45:39 +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
[...]
> Thanks for resuming this work.
+1
> > To get us going, I have come up with a plan:
[...]
> > 2) File a bug against lintian to stop complaining about e2fsprogs
> > dependencies.
>
> +1
For an example of a package (where I recently added e2fsprogs
dependency) that currently triggers this lintian warning, see udisks2.
https://lintian.debian.org/maintainer/pkg-utopia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org.html#udisks2
>
> > 3) MBF those packages that need an e2fsprogs dependency.
> > 4) Drop Essential: yes from e2fsprogs.
>
> As Adam mentioned, we will need to wait one release to drop the
> Essential: yes bit :( . Alternatively, e2fsck would have to gain Breaks:
> against all unfixed rdeps. For such a core package I think this might be
> problematic for upgrades, but I haven't tested.
I disagree.
I don't see any practical problem with dropping it since the Priority
field will still have it as part of any (normal) installation. Potentially
something with a Conflicts/Breaks could motivate apt into attempting
uninstalling it during upgrades, but I don't see anyone having reported
such an issue so no need to assume the worst yet.
If people really think the theoretical is so important a stop-gap
solution could be to use (XB-)Important: yes. Maybe it should even
be used permanently.
See the (new) fdisk package (src:util-linux) as an example.
>
>
> > So I thought, "how hard can it be?" [...]
Famous last words. ;)
Thanks again for enduring through to the final end.
Regards,
Andreas Henriksson
PS. I'd personally see it natural for e2fsprogs to be
Priority: important and (XB-)Important: yes. ie. Part of a normal (but
not minbase) install, plus safety guarded against deinstallation.
Reply to: