Re: Potato now stable
On Fri, 18 Aug 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Presumably sections and tasks will both be subsumed by this. I think
> these should probably be handled differently: saying "I want the games
> task" should probably default to installing all; whereas you'd probably
> not want to say "I want the games section" and have all of them installed.
Well, is this really an issue? If we maintain the taks-* prefix it becomes
clear to the user.. Maybe someone will want to install a full section
- especially if our sections become significantly more useful!
> Changing the meaning of "Section" like this is probably dependent on
> getting dinstall rewritten and the archive restructured first.
Hm, Possibly. I'd have to ask James of course.
> > be installed. The UI tool will track when new packages are added to groups
> > and present that information in conjunction with the traditional new
> > packages display.
> This sort of behaviour probably wouldn't be suitable for sections. Are
> there any other "grouping" style things apart from sections and tasks
> that we can consider?
Why? Right now our sections are pretty useless because they have too wide
a mismatch of things in them. But that doesn't have to remain true.
> This makes the "extra" priority not really fit in though: while you can
> (in theory) install all packages of any of the other priorities you
> specifically *can't* do this with packages in extra. This priority is
True - eliminate it would be my answer. 'extra' packages are gouped into a
view by sections or by name - but not by priority.
> I suspect you'd want a different interface to play with priorities than
> with tasks though, too.
Possibly, I don't know..
> (if you *really* group everything into just one way of doing things),
> but I think this would probably require icky handling on behalf of apt
> or dselect. It probably *would* make it much easier to introduce new
> styles of groupings in future though.
If people want to see this then internally I will convert all groupable
things into whatever the internal group representation is - that makes it
much, much, much simpler to deal with. It isn't so important if that is
done in the archive or not.
Do people like this idea? I mean - if nobody cares I'm certianly not going
to spend any time on it.
Jason
Reply to: