Hi Ted, On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 08:42:16AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > So what I am currently thinking might be a viable first step is to > split out the translations for e2fsprogs and transition from > Essential: yes to Essential: no, since there is no controversy over > that step. We can then decide whether or not it's worthwhile to try > to make the Priority: required -> Priority -> important transition > during Buster or not.
It's been a long while, and non-traditional installations are becoming even more prevalent (e.g. the uptake in containers). I'm wondering what are your latest thoughts on the aforementioned Priority: required->important transition. For what it's worth, looking at Helmut's nonessentiale2fsprogs bug reports¹, it looks like all are either resolved, minor (suggests/recommends), false positives, or unrelated. This audit is 2½ years old at this point, so it's possible more have creeped in since. I'm sure it's within reach for someone to rerun this and for us all to fix all the remaining occurences (if any), but not sure if there is much point for someone to go down that path unless changing the priority is something you'd be willing to do. Also: the timing of the bullseye freeze is going to make this interesting; at worst we can start the work now and execute at the beginning of the bookworm cycle. Do you see any other issues? Anything I missed? Best, Faidon 1: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=helm...@debian.org;tag=nonessentiale2fsprogs
