Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 31 May 2019 08:43:30 -0700
From:   "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
To:     Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc:     "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Lukas Czerner <lczerner@redhat.com>,
        linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
Subject: Re: How to package e2scrub
Message-ID: <20190531154330.GA5378@magnolia>
References: <20190529120603.xuet53xgs6ahfvpl@work>
 <20190529235948.GB3671@mit.edu>
 <20190530095907.GA29237@quack2.suse.cz>
 <20190530135155.GD2751@mit.edu>
 <20190531100713.GA14773@quack2.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190531100713.GA14773@quack2.suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 12:07:13PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 30-05-19 09:51:55, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 11:59:07AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > Yeah, my plan is to just not package cron bits at all since openSUSE / SLES
> > > support only systemd init anyway these days (and in fact our distro people
> > > want to deprecate cron in favor of systemd). I guess I'll split off the
> > > scrub bits into a separate sub-package (likely e2fsprogs will suggest
> > > installation of this sub-package) and the service will be disabled by
> > > default.
> > 
> > I'm not super-fond of extra sub-packages for their own sake, and the
> > extra e2scrub bits are small enough (about 32k?) that I don't believe
> > it justifies an extra sub-package; but that's a distribution-level
> > packaging decision, so it's certainly fine if we're not completely aligned.
> 
> Yes, size is not a big concern but the scrub bits require util-linux, lvm,
> and mailer to work correctly and I don't want to add these dependencies to
> stock e2fsprogs package because some minimal installations do not want e.g.
> lvm at all. Granted these are just scripts so I could get away with not
> requiring e.g. lvm at all but it seems user-unfriendly to leave it up to
> user to determine that his systemd-service fails due to missing packages.

All good reasons for a separate package, particularly considering that
on the RH side they've split out xfs_scrub because of its python 3
dependencies.

> > Out of curiosity, were any of the complaints that you've heard gone
> > beyond people who ran into the various e2scrub/e2scrub_all bugs?  I'm
> > curious what their concerns were.
> 
> I didn't hear any complaints so far. But I have my doubts anyone actually
> run that code so far - openSUSE Tumbleweed has limited userbase, we do
> installs to btrfs by default, we don't propose LVM by default, and I didn't
> enable the service files to run by default.

(I suspect it's only Debian Unstable users who are running it right
now...)

--D

> 
> 								Honza
> -- 
> Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
> SUSE Labs, CR