Re: Questions about tasks and profiles for the debian-cd program (Was: slink_cd v 0.98
On Wed, 6 Jan 1999, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>On Tuesday 5 January 1999, at 22 h 43, the keyboard of Steve McIntyre
><stevem@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> I see a fair number of the suggested combinations contain
>"Priority:extra"
>> packages while other optional packages are not covered. To me, this would
>> suggest that these extra packages should be elevated to optional at
>> least...?
>
>This is a difficult issue. First, a bit of history. I took over the
>maintenance of these files for slink. They were already in hamm and I
>don't know what were the criteria for choices. When there was a doubt, I
>adopted the choice of the previous maintainer.
OK, I expected that to be the case. It might be worth asking on
debian-policy about this, but maybe it'll wait until slink is released :-)
>You can see several examples of this subjectivity. For instance, lpr is not
>included (despite its Priority: Important) because the maintainer preferred
>lprng (whih conflicts with lpr). Since I agree with him, I let it that way,
>but it can be seen as a violation of Debian policy by the guy who uses the
>power of being the task list maintainer :-)
:-)
>I must confess I worked more on internal consistency (I developed the
>tool to check automatically that the dependencies are met) than on
>choices such as "Should we include twm or not"? which are a good way to
>start a flame-war if I ask the question on debian-devel.
I can see that, yes...
>> Has any work been done on equivalent package selections for non-i386
>> architectures?
>
>In theory, they should work for every architecture (see the present
>discussion on debian-devel, where maintainers of other ports scream loudly
>when it is suggested to release slink only for the i386). Because Debian is
>one distribution, running the same on several architectures.
<sigh> I know what you mean...
>But in practice, it seems, according to the m68k maintainer, that there is
>a drift, and the current boot-floppies package does not provide anything to
>deal with it. There are several possible solutions but no implementation.
>Ideas welcome. (Warning: there are traps underneath.)
Yes... Is much work underway on m68k/alpha/whatever boot-floppies at the
moment? I haven't seen much discussion about it, which worries me. And I
think I can see a few i386-specific options in your package list, which of
course won't help. I wish I could find more time to help here...
--
Steve McIntyre, Allstor Software smcintyr@allstor-sw.co.uk
<a href=http://www.rpg-soc.ucam.org/curs/>CURS home page</a>
"Can't keep my eyes from the circling sky,
"Tongue-tied & twisted, Just an earth-bound misfit, I..."
Reply to: