[Pkg-sysvinit-devel] Bug#887266: initscripts should depend on e2fsprogs explicitly
Maybe it was only me it escaped, but please note that initscripts already Recommends e2fsprogs. Apparently this used to be a Depends but was downgraded to Recommends (in 2009), according to the following debian/changelog entry: * Reduce initscripts dependency on e2fsprogs to recomments and drop the versioned relation, as the version needed (1.32+1.33-WIP-2003.04.14-1) was included in a version before oldstable (Closes: #379340). The rationale is in https://bugs.debian.org/379340 (but please note that some things have changed since this discussion. For example the 'fsck' wrapper is shipped by util-linux these days). Maybe that should be considered good enough to just close this bug report? WDYT? Regards, Andreas Henriksson ___ Pkg-sysvinit-devel mailing list Pkg-sysvinit-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-sysvinit-devel
[Pkg-sysvinit-devel] Bug#887266: initscripts should depend on e2fsprogs explicitly
On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 02:35:01AM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > Small containers, systems and chroots that need an init really want to use > sysvinit (thus initscripts) [...] No init or 'dumb-init' are other choices people are advocating for that use-case. I don't think using sysvinit in containers should be considered the normal usecase for it, so I'd argue that adding the dependency for now until someone volunteers to further refactor things (as helmut already suggested, but see also below) [...] > Yes, these scripts to use logsave. If I read codesearch's output right, > there are only two packages that use it: > * initramfs-tools > * initscripts [...] > self-contained .c file that can be tossed around and shipped in any arch:any > package. [...] The discussion about moving logsave around is in #619785 . Please consider also #501481 first though as that would probably make the entire point moot from sysvinit side! (See also #524007 related to logsave usage in sysvinit/initscripts.) Regards, Andreas Henriksson ___ Pkg-sysvinit-devel mailing list Pkg-sysvinit-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-sysvinit-devel
[Pkg-sysvinit-devel] Bug#887266: initscripts should depend on e2fsprogs explicitly
On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 02:35:01AM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > This is an interesting case. Indeed. > Small containers, systems and chroots that need an init really want to use > sysvinit (thus initscripts) instead of systemd, as it's drastically smaller, > both in terms of memory use and disk size. Thus, they're what needs removal > of e2fsprogs the most -- ie, adding the dependency wouldn't be the right > thing to do. Correct. > As you have researched relationship between minimal install packages, you > likely know more than me. Thus, could you advise? I'm sorry. I tend to ignore sysvinit nowadays. My approach here would be to add the dependency as that is no regression: initscripts currently (implicitly) depends on e2fsprogs and it keeps doing so. Then as a secondary step, I'd leave it to people to actually remove the dependency by refactoring either initscripts or e2fsprogs. Of course if both systemd and sysvinit end up pulling e2fsprogs, we'll not win much. But we know precisely where to look then. Helmut ___ Pkg-sysvinit-devel mailing list Pkg-sysvinit-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-sysvinit-devel
[Pkg-sysvinit-devel] Bug#887266: initscripts should depend on e2fsprogs explicitly
On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 08:05:46PM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote: > Package: initscripts > Usertags: nonessentiale2fsprogs > > 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. This is an interesting case. Small containers, systems and chroots that need an init really want to use sysvinit (thus initscripts) instead of systemd, as it's drastically smaller, both in terms of memory use and disk size. Thus, they're what needs removal of e2fsprogs the most -- ie, adding the dependency wouldn't be the right thing to do. > initscripts was identified as potentially needing such a dependency, > because it mentions tool names from e2fsprogs in the following files: > > /etc/init.d/checkfs.sh contains logsave. According to file it is a POSIX > shell script, ASCII text executable > /etc/init.d/checkroot.sh contains logsave. According to file it is a POSIX > shell script, ASCII text executable > > Please investigate whether these cases are actually uses of a tool from > e2fsprogs. Yes, these scripts to use logsave. If I read codesearch's output right, there are only two packages that use it: * initramfs-tools * initscripts /sbin/logsave is currently linked against libblkid.so.1 and libuuid.so.1 -- but, that's wrong: it doesn't use any symbol from either. This currently wouldn't save us anything as other executables in e2fsprogs have a valid reason for this dependency -- but not logsave itself. It also doesn't need any other piece of e2fsprogs. The autoconfage is purely historic as is mandated by POSIX (thus present everywhere) while and its #else stanza are redundant with (POSIX mandates short getopt() since times immemorial). Thus, logsave is a single self-contained .c file that can be tossed around and shipped in any arch:any package. One possibility is initscripts itself -- while it currently doesn't have anything but pure ASCII shell scripts, it's arch:any as its contents differs on non-Linux, and is too low-level for runtime detection to be reasonable. I don't know if initramfs-tools uses logsave on systemd machines, though. As you have researched relationship between minimal install packages, you likely know more than me. Thus, could you advise? Meow! -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢰⠒⠀⣿⡁ Imagine there are bandits in your house, your kid is bleeding out, ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ the house is on fire, and seven big-ass trumpets are playing in the ⠈⠳⣄ sky. Your cat demands food. The priority should be obvious... ___ Pkg-sysvinit-devel mailing list Pkg-sysvinit-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-sysvinit-devel
[Pkg-sysvinit-devel] Bug#887266: initscripts should depend on e2fsprogs explicitly
Package: initscripts Version: 2.88dsf-59.10 User: helm...@debian.org 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. initscripts was identified as potentially needing such a dependency, because it mentions tool names from e2fsprogs in the following files: /etc/init.d/checkfs.sh contains logsave. According to file it is a POSIX shell script, ASCII text executable /etc/init.d/checkroot.sh contains logsave. According to file it is a POSIX shell script, ASCII text executable 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 ___ Pkg-sysvinit-devel mailing list Pkg-sysvinit-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-sysvinit-devel
