On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 03:28:32PM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 02:18:45PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > 1) If people really want to make e2fsprogs non-essential, I'm not
> > going to object seriously. It's the downgrade of e2fsprogs from
> > Priority: required to Priority: important which where things get
> > super-exciting.
By the way, when I said "super-exciting", that was a reference to an
management euphemism "uncomfortably excited" which generally refers to
the excitement one feels when "working without a net while crossing
the Grand Canyon on a tightrope" :-)
But if you really are focused on getting to Essential: no, and not
necessarily changing the priority field, that certainly is a much more
easily achievable goal.
> > 3) Lsattr/chattr et.al depend on the e2fsprogs shared libraries, so
> > moving them into a separate binary package isn't going to save as much
> > space as you would like. So it's not at all clear the complexity is
> > worth it.
>
> I'm not enthusiastic about moving lsattr either for precisely the reasons
> you name.
Yeah, I think the bigger question is whether any of a reduced minbase
needs lsattr/chattr in the first place.
> Reducing the package count lowers the complexity of the bootstrap
> problem. If e2fsprogs (or anything else) can be moved to the native
> phase, that's a win.
To to be clear, the key metric for your specific goal is the reduction
of the _source_ package count since the goal is to reduce the number
of packages which have to be built by "hand" (or by script), before
you can create a sbuild/pbuild build chroot, correct?
Cheers,
- Ted
