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

Re: Welcome blends-inject + question about "Ignore" in the task files

[Reply-to set to debian-blends list where the discussion should be continued]

On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 09:52:40AM -0500, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
> Hi Andreas and the team,
> To ease our life in maintaining tasks files across blends, having
> multiple copies of descriptions, especially for not-yet-uploaded
> packages 'blends-inject' came into existence [1]. Sample obscure
> package's debian/blends [2] and somewhat lighter one: [3] could serve as
> examples.

Ahh, thanks for the clarification.  It is fine if you just test
blends-inject for your case and once it has proven to be useful moving
it to Blends repository.  Just make sure not to forget the publishing
later.  (I'll keep an eye on blends-inject commits as you have seen ;-)
and if there will be a lot of them I'll ping you again ...)

> I thought finally to take care about "blends standards" (e.g. as
> described in doc/en/A_devel.sgml), so for packages which still have no
> tentative packages I used Ignore: source name, since it seems to be the one 
> to use according to the description of Ignore.

The Ignore field was introduced by the Debian Edu team with the purpose
to tag *existing* packages which are not worth putting them on a Debian
Edu release DVD (to save some space) but might be of some interest
somehow and thus they are kept in the tasks file.  This field was
historically invented before the web pages existed and before we started
maintaining prospective packages.

In Debian Med we currently are not releasing any installation media thus
we do not care about the size of it and so we do not need this extra
category and use as lowest priority "Suggests".

> Docs suggested that such package would be placed "on the radar" (not
> even under), thus I implied that at least it would get listed on the web
> task pages.  But apparently, as Michael H. has pointed out, they
> are indeed "Ignored", i.e. not listed.

Yes, they are in fact ignored on the web pages currently.  I do not have
a strong opinion about this and if you can tell me a convincing reason
to include also "Ignore" on the web pages this is not a big deal.
Please include in your reasoning a description how we should call this
section which is below Suggests.  (IMHO if you are at this point of
trying to find a reasonable wording you will realise that it is hard to
describe and I learned that things which are hard to describe are a
consequence of a bad concept.)
> So, the question -- should I go for the "standard" or just for "common
> practice" (i.e. use just Depends/Recommends/Suggests for existing
> and non-existing packages).  I do not mind always using Depends (like I
> was before), but I thought it might be beneficial to take advantage of
> the full range of specs ;) (so may be some tools could complaint
> whenever package in Depends is not available, and it would mean typo in
> the package's name, etc).

I would go with Depends and Suggests for prospective packages.  We
finally *intent* to package these and I personally have no intent to
package stuff which is later at a "Ignored" level.  Why spending time on
unimportant stuff if the TODO list is featuring a lot of more important

Moreover the idea behind this prospective packages is that the
metapackages are featuring at least a Suggests for those not yet
available packages and will start to work somehow immediately once a
package becomes available.  This feature is not available for "Ignore".

> Please advise

Hope this helps


> [1] http://git.debian.org/?p=pkg-exppsy/neurodebian.git;a=blob;hb=HEAD;f=tools/blends-inject
> [2] http://git.debian.org/?p=pkg-exppsy/brian.git;a=blob;f=debian/blends;hb=debian
> [3] http://git.debian.org/?p=pkg-exppsy/pynn.git;a=blob;f=debian/blends;hb=debian


Reply to: