Bug#887278: live-build should depend on e2fsprogs explicitly
Hello Raphael Hertzog,
thanks for your feedback on the issue....
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 04:49:37PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jan 2018, Andreas Henriksson wrote:
[...]
> > My conclusion is thus that this is a false positive and the bug report
> > should simply be closed.
[...]
> There are multiple calls to mkfs.${MKFS} that have not been detected.
> Some of them are already adequately protected by a "Check_package" call
> but I believe that scripts/build/binary_hdd and scripts/build/source_hdd
> have to be updated.
The source of live-build might well need improvements to deal with
what's inside the chroot it works with, but I don't think that's
the main focus of this bug report. A package relationship of live-build,
could not influence what's available in the chroot (unless I'm
mistaken), so the chroot is out of scope I'd say.
Please also note that e2fsprogs will still be installed on *any* system
where it has not explicitly been removed, even after it's no longer
marked 'Essential: yes'. Thus if the chroot live-build works with is
debootstrapped it'll still have e2fsprogs installed. The main question
for this bug report is 'if e2fsprogs is uninstalled, does live-build
also have to be uninstalled on the same system because of that?'.
Looking again, for places where mkfs is used *outside* the chroot
it seems cases looking at LB_BUILD_WITH_CHROOT being false
and then using mkfs is relevant, like for example this one:
https://sources.debian.org/src/live-build/1:20171207/scripts/build/binary_rootfs/#L187
... but at the same time, the same happens for parted usage
and there's no package relationship specified against parted:
https://sources.debian.org/src/live-build/1:20171207/scripts/build/binary_hdd/#L183
.... or mkfs.jffs2:
https://sources.debian.org/src/live-build/1:20171207/scripts/build/binary_hdd/#L183
I'm confused about the current status and if we agree or not.
Would likely be better if we file separate bug reports for separate
issues, for example this typo will likely always make the ntfs check
fail but that's offtopic for this bug report:
https://sources.debian.org/src/live-build/1:20171207/scripts/build/binary_hdd/#L53
Would be happy to hear more about if maintainers thinks we need a
dependency or not..... It still looks to me like *if* a dependency on
e2fsprogs is warranted, it should come with lots of other dependencies
at the same time (like parted, mtd-utils, etc., etc.).
(I'm happy to help out with work on that, but I'm not going to pick up
live-build maintenance and fix every possible bug in it. My interest is
limited to making e2fsprogs non-essential.)
Regards,
Andreas Henriksson
Reply to: