[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: e2fsprogs as Essential: yes?

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 5:31 AM, Andreas Henriksson <andreas@fatal.se> wrote:
> 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.

Currently the only negative dependency is initramfs-tools, which has a
Breaks against versions older than stable (but not oldstable).

I note that both systemd and sysvinit would have to gain a Depends, so
at least bootable systems should be fine. The intersection of
"non-bootable systems" and "systems that need e2fsprogs" should be
small. (Please enlighten me if I'm lacking in imagination)
Would backporting this dependency to stable be possible/feasible?

> 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.

I don't think that's necessary as init is Important: yes, and both
systemd and sysvinit will have to gain a dep on e2fsprogs.


Felipe Sateler

Reply to: