Hello Adam Borowski, thanks for your feedback.
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 11:03:08AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > But why should mount be Essential? It's useless in containers and chroots. I'm very open to making things non-essential if possible, not limited to only mount. (Why should bsdutils be essential for example? But how do we make it non-essential? Even if policy didn't forbid depending on essential packages, how would we even identify users that should add a dependency? See also #474540 for another example of this practical problem.) I aware of but have no practical experience with the Important: yes field. I can only guess and hope that if we use that for mount there won't be any weird upgrade problems. (Help welcome to verify it!) One thing to consider first though might be if the findmnt utility should be moved over to util-linux package (I likely put this tool in the wrong place to begin with since it didn't matter much back then). WDYT? [...] > What about making the split at different levels of essentialness? With the > new Important: yes (not be confused with priority: important), this makes > three levels, and thus three packages: > * stuff that's needed on every Debian system > * stuff needed on every bare-metal box / "real" VM > * things you can go without I would be very interested to see your resulting of this splitup! Also please consider it in the light of the previous criterias I posted. (Because suggesting something better which have doable upgrade path from the current state is problematic from a practical perspective. In theory I'm not really sure there's anything matching the "stuff that's needed on every Debian system" criteria in src:util-linux if considering less usual usecases.) Regards, Andreas Henriksson
