lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Fri, 31 May 2019 12:07:13 +0200
From:   Jan Kara <>
To:     Theodore Ts'o <>
Cc:     Jan Kara <>, Lukas Czerner <>,, Jan Kara <>
Subject: Re: How to package e2scrub

On Thu 30-05-19 09:51:55, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 11:59:07AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > Yeah, my plan is to just not package cron bits at all since openSUSE / SLES
> > support only systemd init anyway these days (and in fact our distro people
> > want to deprecate cron in favor of systemd). I guess I'll split off the
> > scrub bits into a separate sub-package (likely e2fsprogs will suggest
> > installation of this sub-package) and the service will be disabled by
> > default.
> I'm not super-fond of extra sub-packages for their own sake, and the
> extra e2scrub bits are small enough (about 32k?) that I don't believe
> it justifies an extra sub-package; but that's a distribution-level
> packaging decision, so it's certainly fine if we're not completely aligned.

Yes, size is not a big concern but the scrub bits require util-linux, lvm,
and mailer to work correctly and I don't want to add these dependencies to
stock e2fsprogs package because some minimal installations do not want e.g.
lvm at all. Granted these are just scripts so I could get away with not
requiring e.g. lvm at all but it seems user-unfriendly to leave it up to
user to determine that his systemd-service fails due to missing packages.

> Out of curiosity, were any of the complaints that you've heard gone
> beyond people who ran into the various e2scrub/e2scrub_all bugs?  I'm
> curious what their concerns were.

I didn't hear any complaints so far. But I have my doubts anyone actually
run that code so far - openSUSE Tumbleweed has limited userbase, we do
installs to btrfs by default, we don't propose LVM by default, and I didn't
enable the service files to run by default.

Jan Kara <>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists