Re: Potato now stable
>> Joey Hess <email@example.com> writes:
> Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > Tasks are bettered handled through some kind of non-package means. I've
> > long said we need to determine some kind of meta-package scheme (a
> > 'package' whose only purpose is to logically group other packages).
> How is introducing some basterdized form of package (perhaps it's just
> an entry in the Packages file or something), going to allow us to
> address problems like aj was talking about, where one of the things it
> depends on is removed from debian, and it needs to be updated?
in the one bit you trimmed out, Jason said:
> Logically, the way to represent this is to have package declare
> their membership in a grouping. This could be done via the override
> file so as to maintain a centralized authority like we have no with
> the task packages. Groups and user preferences about them could be
> stored seperate to the status file.
This wouldn't be that difficult. Just add a 'Task:' field to the
packages. Have the default be non-existant (empty). In order to add
information to the overrides file (and not put the load on the ftp
people's shoulders) have a 'maintained overrides', that is, a bit of
the overrides file maintianed just like a normal package (e.g.,
task-games.overrides). In this way you satisfy aj's concerns
(changing this would be as short as editing a text file, signing and
uploading) and provide the functionality of task-packages, provided
UI tools support this field.
One problem here is that sooner or later someone will start thinking
of such sick things as 'local overrides'.