Comment 4 for bug 1829370

Revision history for this message
Christian Ehrhardt  (paelzer) wrote :

For #1 thanks for the hint Julian.
Would it make sense to break the really essential bits of e2fsprogs into a new binary "fsprogs" then. And make e2fsprogs depend on it to not break anyone.
After that the essential seed could be changed from e2fsprogs -> fsprogs

And yes - this would also be a transition from "Essential: yes" as well.
I did not expect this to be resolved super fast anyway, but to start it or it would be done never.