Re: Bug#174410: questionable interpretation of "install" pseudo-package
reassign 174410 ftp.debian.org
thanks
There's now a debian-installer package (real, not pseudo, but same
difference), which addresses part of this bug. With regard to the
confusion about install/installation, I just had a conversation with
Joey Hess on IRC:
<joeyh> Kamion: are you around?
<Kamion> joeyh: yes?
<joeyh> Kamion: can we get rid of the installer/installation
pseudo-packages split in debbugs?
<joeyh> it's making my head spin
* joeyh would rather these pseudo-packages didn't exist at all, they
get both boot-floppies and d-i stuff
<Kamion> joeyh: suits me fine (and see the discussion in #174410);
you'll need to get an ftpmaster to actually make the change
though
<Kamion> for reasons I'm not sure I fully understand, ftpmaster
maintains the pseudo-package list
<joeyh> ftpmaster makes these changes?
<joeyh> Kamion: note that "debian-installer" stopped being a
pseudopackage a while ago, but it's still the de-facto place
for stuff described in #174410
<Kamion> joeyh: it sounds sensible to have "boot-floppies" for woody
stuff and "debian-installer" plus the -reports ones for misc
unassigned >=sarge stuff, without the weird middle ground
that is install/installation
<joeyh> Kamion: I agree
<joeyh> fwiw, I am moving a great deal of stuff from those 2 right now
<Kamion> joeyh: ok, I'll bounce #174410 over to ftp.d.o with a log of
this conversation then
So, could you please remove the "install" and "installation"
pseudo-packages, and change the description of the "boot-floppy"
pseudo-package to read something like 'Installation system in Debian 3.0
and earlier releases'? (Actually, I'm not sure why "boot-floppy" exists
either, but I guess it catches some typoes ...)
The "installation-reports" and "upgrade-reports" pseudo-packages should
remain.
Thanks,
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: