[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Metapackages for accessibility

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 09:29:34PM +0200, Mario Lang wrote:
> The webpages are a nice thing to have, I agree.

> Regarding metapackages I see some useful categories
> like "braille-transcription", "development-tools", "ocr", and maybe
> "X11".
> The rest, I am actually not so sure about:

Well, the reason to send this mail was to make sure everything makes
sense and I really have to relay on your input.
>  * "applications" looks like too generic to be useful.

Well, it has only one dependency anyway, perhaps we can move this to
some other task and drop the applications task.  Suggestions?

>  * "console-screen-reader" has several solutions which
>    the user is not likely to use at once.  More likely is that
>    they pick one and use it.  But installing all of them might
>    lead to conflicts maybe?

Could somebody check the chance of a conflict?  We can also implement an
or relation for the metapackage and it remains listed equally on the
tasks web page.

>  * "emacs-extensions" is the same problem.  People are going
>    to use either emacspeak or speechd-el but definitely not both at
>    once.

So the or relation seems to make sense here as well (just implemented
in this task as an example).

>  * "gnome" looks neat but the problem is already solved in a better way.
>    GNOME actually considers accessibility a core part of its
>    infrastructure which means that pkg-gnome is already pulling most of the
>    required stuff at least via Recommends.  I consider this a great
>    thing and the way to go, thanks GNOME!

OK, so a accessibility metapackage seems to be redundant here.  It is
nice for the tasks pages anyway and does not really harm to have another
way to advertise pkg-gnome, right.  The question would probably be:
Would it be reasonable to just depend from pkg-gnome in the
accessibility-gnome metapackage or should we also list all the pkg-gnome
dependencies - if we would decide to keep this metapackage instead of
droping it. I'm in favour of keeping it for consistency reasons: If we
want to maintain all accessibility packages (which should be listed for
instance on the bugs pages and other QA means, perhaps building a live
CD or dedicated installers) we need to keep track of these packages.

>  * Most of what is in "speech-synthesis" is going to be pulled via Depends.
>    I am not sure how useful it is to just install everything there is.

We can use Suggests instead - just tell me what you prefer.
> > I would consider it as a good idea to do so because this might enable
> > pointing to the Debian Accessibility project in the release notes for
> > Squeeze which will probably increase the popularity of the Debian
> > Accessibility project amongst Debian users and makes Debian more
> > attractive in this field.
> Well, we can already point at these nice webpages, can't we?

Sure we can but installation wise metapackages (or tasks for tasksel,
which will be in the package accessibility-tasks) ae IMHO quite handy.
I agree you had some points above but IMHO the advantages are higher
compared to your concerns above which are in my opinion no real
arguments against this approach.

Kind regards



Reply to: