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. 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.
