Bug 2346282
| Summary: | Split Python scripts (xfs_protofile) into a subpackage | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Timothée Ravier <travier> |
| Component: | xfsprogs | Assignee: | Eric Sandeen <esandeen> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | aalbersh, esandeen, preichl |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | xfsprogs-6.13.0-2.fc43 | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2025-03-07 16:23:57 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Timothée Ravier
2025-02-18 16:23:38 UTC
I've pushed a draft PR at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xfsprogs/pull-request/19 (In reply to Timothée Ravier from comment #0) > Some variants (Fedora CoreOS) do not include Python by default and would > prefer not to depend on it, thus core packages should, ideally, not depend > on Python. > > Can we split the xfs_protofile command to its own subpackage? > > Reproducible: Always xfs_scrub_all also uses python (was added ~2018). Not fully familiar with dependency management on CoreOS but does installing Python later would work? Without python only these python scripts won't work, and both of them aren't too commonly used. hmmm coreos main purpose is containers, so maybe these scripts would be used in there more often. If it's not too difficult to manage two packages then it's probably fine. But it probably better to include xfs_scrub_all also. Protofiles are rarely used, as far as I know. Can we do a Suggests: python instead of Requires:, and fail gracefully if not installed? Maybe not, given that the script itself is python. Honestly for now I would not be too sad if we simply chose to not package xfs_protofile, at least in the short term. Proliferation of subpackages can be hard to un-do, and if we get a request for it later, we can re-evaluate options then. xfs_scrub_all is more likely to be used, at least in the future, but it's already in a separate package, xfsprogs-xfs_scrub so perhaps that is enough. > xfs_scrub_all also uses python (was added ~2018). Not fully familiar with > dependency management on CoreOS but does installing Python later would > work? I don't know what you mean by later but the xfs_scrub package is not included in FCOS as it pulls in Python which we exclude. If users want this package they can overlay it and it will pull Python as needed but we don't include it in the default image. > Can we do a Suggests: python instead of Requires:, and fail gracefully if > not installed? Maybe not, given that the script itself is python. That will not work as the python dependency is added to the package (I think by `rpm` itself) as it finds a Python script inside of the package. All the Python script should be split into a distinct sub-package. FEDORA-2025-4989b0edf1 (xfsprogs-6.13.0-2.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-4989b0edf1 FEDORA-2025-4989b0edf1 (xfsprogs-6.13.0-2.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. |