Re: e2fsprogs as Essential: yes?: Maybe we should be separating l10n files first?

On Sat, Jan 06, 2018 at 02:25:55AM +0100, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: > 2018-01-02 03:10 Theodore Ts'o: > > My only real concern is whether this might complicate building the > > latest version of e2fsprogs for stable and old-stable for > > debian-backports. > > I think that it's fine,

Re: e2fsprogs as Essential: yes?: Maybe we should be separating l10n files first?

2018-01-02 03:10 Theodore Ts'o: My only real concern is whether this might complicate building the latest version of e2fsprogs for stable and old-stable for debian-backports. I think that it's fine, they've been supported for a long time and stable and old-stable should be covered, not sure

Re: e2fsprogs as Essential: yes?: Maybe we should be separating l10n files first?

On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 12:38:55AM +0100, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: > > Lately architectures tend to use automatic bootstrapping at least for > some of the initial dependencies. Adding support for build profiles > (would be something like pkg.e2fsprogs.nofuse in this case) can help to

Re: e2fsprogs as Essential: yes?: Maybe we should be separating l10n files first?

On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 08:16:35PM +, Simon McVittie wrote: > > Has there been any thought about having the build > > profiles framework support for having the rules file autoselect a > > build profile based on the build environment? > > I suspect that might be a "considered and rejected"

Re: e2fsprogs as Essential: yes?: Maybe we should be separating l10n files first?

On Wed, 03 Jan 2018 at 12:40:45 -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > From the BuildProfile web page and > looking at the package versions, support for it appears to be in > Jessie, or at least "preliminary support" is present. jessie's apt/dpkg at least don't choke on the new syntax (I tried backporting

Re: e2fsprogs as Essential: yes?: Maybe we should be separating l10n files first?

On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 11:43:23PM +, Simon McVittie wrote: > > Perhaps you could convert this into a pkg.e2fsprogs.nofuse build profile? > > This would look something like the attached (untested!) patches. Thanks, I'll give this a try. From the

Re: e2fsprogs as Essential: yes?: Maybe we should be separating l10n files first?

On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 12:38:55AM +0100, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: > Lately architectures tend to use automatic bootstrapping at least for > some of the initial dependencies. Adding support for build profiles > (would be something like pkg.e2fsprogs.nofuse in this case) can help to >

Re: e2fsprogs as Essential: yes?: Maybe we should be separating l10n files first?

On Mon, 01 Jan 2018 at 16:51:45 -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > This probably doesn't help much, but for people who are doing things > by hand, you can skip the dependency on fuse by unpacking the > e2fsprogs source packaging, adding the file debian/rules.custom which > contains the single line,

Re: e2fsprogs as Essential: yes?: Maybe we should be separating l10n files first?

Hi! 2018-01-01 22:51 Theodore Ts'o: This probably doesn't help much, but for people who are doing things by hand, you can skip the dependency on fuse by unpacking the e2fsprogs source packaging, adding the file debian/rules.custom which contains the single line, "SKIP_FUSE2FS=yes", and

Re: e2fsprogs as Essential: yes?: Maybe we should be separating l10n files first?

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 08:35:10PM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote: > > 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

Re: e2fsprogs as Essential: yes?: Maybe we should be separating l10n files first?

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 11:59:46AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > 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. Of course, reducing minbase would be nice as well, but I agree

Re: e2fsprogs as Essential: yes?: Maybe we should be separating l10n files first?

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

Re: e2fsprogs as Essential: yes?: Maybe we should be separating l10n files first?

Hi Theodore, Thanks for speaking up. 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

Re: e2fsprogs as Essential: yes?: Maybe we should be separating l10n files first?

On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 at 14:18:45 -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > P.S. In case it isn't obvious, the reason why it's interesting to > shrink the size of minbase is that it makes Debian much lighter-weight > for Docker The same is true for Flatpak runtimes, which are purely for user-level apps and so

Re: e2fsprogs as Essential: yes?: Maybe we should be separating l10n files first?

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 01:14:01AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > I think that trying to trim down the pseudo-Essential set is an > extremely worthwhile goal, because it has visible effects on several > areas, at least: > > - Possibly making bootstrapping a port way easier. > - Making it

Re: e2fsprogs as Essential: yes?: Maybe we should be separating l10n files first?

On Sun, 2017-11-12 at 18:27:16 -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 09:13:42PM +0100, Mathieu Parent wrote: > > There is another way to trim the locales: Use dpkg's "--path-exclude=". > > > > This also allows one to keep some locales. This is what we use at work > > [1]. The

Re: e2fsprogs as Essential: yes?: Maybe we should be separating l10n files first?

On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 09:13:42PM +0100, Mathieu Parent wrote: > > There is another way to trim the locales: Use dpkg's "--path-exclude=". > > This also allows one to keep some locales. This is what we use at work > [1]. The problem is that debootstrap doesn't handle those options, so > we need

Re: e2fsprogs as Essential: yes?: Maybe we should be separating l10n files first?

Hi, 2017-11-12 20:18 GMT+01:00 Theodore Ts'o : [...] > 4) If the real goal is reduce the size of minbase, there is a much > more effective thing we can do first, or at least, in parallel. And > that is to move the l10n files to a separate foo-l10n package. The > last time I did

Re: e2fsprogs as Essential: yes?: Maybe we should be separating l10n files first?

On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 01:34:47PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > But, we're discussing changes to e2fsprogs behind its maintainer's back. I > believe he reads debian-devel, but, being nowhere like a frequent poster, > apparently doesn't watch new threads immediately as they appear (and this > one