Re: Task: parallel-* ?
Junichi Uekawa wrote:
Makes sense (except lam-dev, it seems that should be in -dev rather than
-master...). So there is a valid use for -dev, -master and -node.
Adam C Powell IV <email@example.com> cum veritate scripsit:
So what does go on a master/head node, but not on the others? Is there
a need for such a -master task?
I don't remember if we included dhcp/bootp/rarp/tftp, but
if that's the case they would be on the master.
I am skeptical we can make it into the tasks now, and I
am also doubtful it should be a task.
On whether we can make it into tasksel, I can certainly try. Why don't
you think it should be a task?
That's another approach, but personally, I like the elegance of the
tasksel system, particularly the ability to add one's package to a task
just by putting Task: in control, instead of having to bug the
maintainer of the meta-package.
Maybe a meta-package, just not task-parallel-*
but call it parallel-* ?
I'm curious about your reluctance to create tasksel tasks...
GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6
Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe!