On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 5:31 AM, Andreas Henriksson <andr...@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-maintain...@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. -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler
