Bug 2346282 - Split Python scripts (xfs_protofile) into a subpackage
Summary: Split Python scripts (xfs_protofile) into a subpackage
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: xfsprogs
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Eric Sandeen
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2025-02-18 16:23 UTC by Timothée Ravier
Modified: 2025-03-07 16:23 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version: xfsprogs-6.13.0-2.fc43
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2025-03-07 16:23:57 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Timothée Ravier 2025-02-18 16:23:38 UTC
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

Comment 1 Timothée Ravier 2025-02-18 16:37:11 UTC
I've pushed a draft PR at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xfsprogs/pull-request/19

Comment 2 Andrey Albershteyn (aalbersh) 2025-02-19 16:55:45 UTC
(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.

Comment 3 Eric Sandeen 2025-02-19 17:56:17 UTC
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.

Comment 4 Timothée Ravier 2025-02-19 18:17:48 UTC
> 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.

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2025-03-07 13:44:32 UTC
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

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2025-03-07 16:23:57 UTC
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.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.