Hi! On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 12:48:25AM +0200, Faidon Liambotis wrote: > 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?
I haven't received a response for this. We are now at the beginning of the aforementioned bookworm cycle, so I thought it may be a good opportunity to bump this :) Do you have any thoughts? Thanks! Faidon
