Your message dated Mon, 15 Jan 2018 16:53:50 +0100
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#887204: reiserfsprogs should depend on e2fsprogs
explicitly
has caused the Debian Bug report #887204,
regarding reiserfsprogs should depend on e2fsprogs explicitly
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
887204: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=887204
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: reiserfsprogs
Version: 1:3.6.27-2
User: [email protected]
Usertags: nonessentiale2fsprogs
Dear maintainer,
We want to make removing e2fsprogs from installations possible. For standard
installations this is not useful, but embedded applications and chroots benefit
from such an option. For getting there all packages that use e2fsprogs must be
identified and gain a dependency on it as e2fsprogs currently is essential.
reiserfsprogs was identified as potentially needing such a dependency,
because it mentions tool names from e2fsprogs in the following files:
/sbin/debugreiserfs contains badblocks. According to file it is a ELF 64-bit
LSB shared object, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV)
/sbin/mkreiserfs contains badblocks. According to file it is a ELF 64-bit LSB
shared object, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV)
/sbin/reiserfsck contains badblocks. According to file it is a ELF 64-bit LSB
shared object, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV)
/sbin/reiserfstune contains badblocks. According to file it is a ELF 64-bit LSB
shared object, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV)
Please investigate whether these cases are actually uses of a tool from
e2fsprogs. Care has been taken to shrink the number of candidates as much as
possible, but a few false positives will remain. After doing so, do one of the
following:
* Add e2fsprogs to Depends.
* Add e2fsprogs to Recommends.
* Close this bug explaining why e2fsprogs is not used by this package.
Once e2fsprogs drops the "Essential: yes" flag, this bug will be upgraded to RC
severity. Please note that lintian will warn about such a dependency before
lintian 2.5.56.
Thanks for your help
Helmut
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Am Sonntag, den 14.01.2018, 20:10 +0100 schrieb Helmut Grohne:
> Package: reiserfsprogs
> Version: 1:3.6.27-2
> User: [email protected]
> Usertags: nonessentiale2fsprogs
>
> Dear maintainer,
>
[...]
> reiserfsprogs was identified as potentially needing such a
> dependency,
> because it mentions tool names from e2fsprogs in the following files:
>
> /sbin/debugreiserfs contains badblocks. According to file it is a ELF
> 64-bit LSB shared object, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV)
> /sbin/mkreiserfs contains badblocks. According to file it is a ELF
> 64-bit LSB shared object, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV)
> /sbin/reiserfsck contains badblocks. According to file it is a ELF
> 64-bit LSB shared object, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV)
> /sbin/reiserfstune contains badblocks. According to file it is a ELF
> 64-bit LSB shared object, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV)
>
> Please investigate whether these cases are actually uses of a tool
> from
> e2fsprogs. Care has been taken to shrink the number of candidates as
> much as
> possible, but a few false positives will remain. After doing so, do
> one of the
> following:
>
> * Add e2fsprogs to Depends.
> * Add e2fsprogs to Recommends.
> * Close this bug explaining why e2fsprogs is not used by this
> package.
>
[...]
> Thanks for your help
>
> Helmut
Hi,
I checked the source code with "rgrep badblocks"
There are only functions named badblocks but there is nowhere a call to
the badblocks binary from e2fsprogs.
Regards
Felix
--- End Message ---
