Re: let's etch a common way of using debtags for CDDs and beyond!
Hi,
Am Thursday 19 May 2005 23:04 schrieb Sergio Talens-Oliag:
> Good, then is the proposed syntax enough or do I you think that we need
> to include or modify something? I don't plan to use that now, but adding
> the Fields on the file parser and documenting it on the cddtool proposal
> could be a good idea before it gets lost on the mail archive... ;)
Hmm, ok this is up for discussion by everyone of course, but since you
politely asked me, too. Some brain storming. :)
Being able to use logical inclusion/exclusions or operators may be nice.
The line
Tag-Depend: mycdd::desktop-std, mycdd::net-base, mycdd::devel
looks as if each packet that is part of the mycdd would have to be taged
beforehand.
Idealy the definitions could maybe mostly be based on different more common
tags like those of some xserver-base, desktop-base, office-apps, special apps
etc.
Together with AND, OR and NOT some packages could be excluded again or allow
alternatives. Like chosing another DE automaticly results in including
appripriate DE-extensions of the office-suit for that DE.
So actually taging packages as mycdd::config-template for example would only
be neseccary to a small extend.
Instead of tagging packages to profiles like mycdd::terminal-server-profile
one would maintain the definition possibly by adding or substracing from
another definition.
Now of course all of this may be allready totaly clear for some of you, even
already have a notation and be just me being late to realise.
OK, what would this mean syntax-wise?
A Field to include another definition? A Field to exclude by tags or packages?
A field for alternatives?
Or allowing AND, OR, NOT, () etc. keywords inline?
Regards,
Christian
Reply to: