Bug#883020: Debian Bug Report: libguestfs0 should not depend on btrfs-progs
Control: tag -1 wontfix * H.-Dirk Schmitt: > The intention to report it here was to avoid this troubles for other > users and improve the package quality. Sure, thanks. I am not going make any changes to the package but I'm going to leave the bug report open. Cheers, -Hilko
Bug#883020: Debian Bug Report: libguestfs0 should not depend on btrfs-progs
Am Mittwoch, den 29.11.2017, 17:13 +0100 schrieb Hilko Bengen: > To back up my claim: Default installations of SuSE Enterprise Linux > (or > whatever it is called these days) are based upon BTRFS. Oops - I thought I'm using the Debian Bug Tracker > > I'm not sure I follow: Do you mean that some sort of policy > > forbids/prevents installation of anything btrfs-related? > > > > **YES** > > I'm maintaining an mid-size installation. For these systems > > 'btrfs-tools' is explicitly removed: > > - not used, because I rely on ext4 and mdraid > > - limiting the installed packages is improving the security > > (reducing > > surface) > > - it has had introduced a boot delay (at this time trusty was used, > > not retested actually). > > If you really wish to reduce the attack surface imposed by a > filesystem > implementation, you'll want to get rid of the kernel component, i.e. > you'll ship custom kernels or use module blacklisting. This means > that > you are already working with distribution tools and I suggest using > equivs or similar to provide a dummy btrfs-progs package. You are right - there are a lot of different solutions for different problems ☺ The justification for the exclusion of btrfs-tools in our organisation was just provided to give you some ideas about why somebody can't deploy btrfs-tools. For my installations I resolved the conflict already by adding an 'Provides:' clause to an organisational meta package. The intention to report it here was to avoid this troubles for other users and improve the package quality. Best Regards, H.-Dirk Schmitt -- Signature H.-Dirk Schmitt H.-Dirk Schmitt Dipl.Math. eMail:dirk.schm...@computer42.org mobile:+49 177 616 8564 phone: +49 2642 99 41 14 fax: +49 2642 99 41 15 Schillerstr. 42, D-53489 Sinzig pgp: http://www.computer42.org/~dirk/OpenPGP-fingerprint.html
Bug#883020: Debian Bug Report: libguestfs0 should not depend on btrfs-progs
* H.-Dirk Schmitt: > Am Dienstag, den 28.11.2017, 23:13 +0100 schrieb Hilko Bengen: > > libguestfs is designed to handle disk images of virtual machines and it > makes sense to include at least support for common filesystems. You and > I may not particularly like the filesystem, but btrfs is one of the more > commonly used filesystems. > > See e.g. https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main%5FPage > „Not too many companies have said that they are using Btrfs in production…“ To back up my claim: Default installations of SuSE Enterprise Linux (or whatever it is called these days) are based upon BTRFS. > I'm not sure I follow: Do you mean that some sort of policy > forbids/prevents installation of anything btrfs-related? > > **YES** > I'm maintaining an mid-size installation. For these systems > 'btrfs-tools' is explicitly removed: > - not used, because I rely on ext4 and mdraid > - limiting the installed packages is improving the security (reducing > surface) > - it has had introduced a boot delay (at this time trusty was used, > not retested actually). If you really wish to reduce the attack surface imposed by a filesystem implementation, you'll want to get rid of the kernel component, i.e. you'll ship custom kernels or use module blacklisting. This means that you are already working with distribution tools and I suggest using equivs or similar to provide a dummy btrfs-progs package. Cheers, -Hilko
Bug#883020: Debian Bug Report: libguestfs0 should not depend on btrfs-progs
Am Dienstag, den 28.11.2017, 23:13 +0100 schrieb Hilko Bengen: > libguestfs is designed to handle disk images of virtual machines and > it > makes sense to include at least support for common filesystems. You > and > I may not particularly like the filesystem, but btrfs is one of the > more > commonly used filesystems. See e.g. https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main%5FPage „Not too many companies have said that they are using Btrfs in production…“ > See [1] for why the binary packages built from the libguestfs source > packages are split the way they are right now. But size is not the only criteria - see below. > > There are systems which explicitly exclude btrfs from setup. > > I'm not sure I follow: Do you mean that some sort of policy > forbids/prevents installation of anything btrfs-related? **YES** I'm maintaining an mid-size installation. For these systems 'btrfs- tools' is explicitly removed: - not used, because I rely on ext4 and mdraid - limiting the installed packages is improving the security (reducing surface) - it has had introduced a boot delay (at this time trusty was used, not retested actually). In my opinion a package maintainer shouldn't nail a dependency if the package may work without. It is simple discrete mathematics that he couldn't overview the exponentially growing diversity of installations Best Regards, H.-DIrk Schmitt
Bug#883020: Debian Bug Report: libguestfs0 should not depend on btrfs-progs
* H.-Dirk Schmitt: > Package: libguestfs0 > Version: 1.28.1 (and newer) > > libguestfs0 should not depend on btrfs-progs. libguestfs is designed to handle disk images of virtual machines and it makes sense to include at least support for common filesystems. You and I may not particularly like the filesystem, but btrfs is one of the more commonly used filesystems. See [1] for why the binary packages built from the libguestfs source packages are split the way they are right now. > There are systems which explicitly exclude btrfs from setup. I'm not sure I follow: Do you mean that some sort of policy forbids/prevents installation of anything btrfs-related? Cheers, -Hilko [1] https://rwmj.wordpress.com/2014/03/20/analysis-of-the-size-of-libguestfs-dependencies/
Bug#883020: Debian Bug Report: libguestfs0 should not depend on btrfs-progs
Package: libguestfs0 Version: 1.28.1 (and newer) libguestfs0 should not depend on btrfs-progs. There are systems which explicitly exclude btrfs from setup. Is there a hard reason that a "Recommends" is not enough ?
