Re: Welcome blends-inject + question about "Ignore" in the task files
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010, Andreas Tille wrote:
> historically invented before the web pages existed and before we started
> maintaining prospective packages.
> 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.)
Well, imho the conceptual issue is the diversion from pure semantical
tagging of the meaning (i.e. Depends/Recommends.../Ignore) to the set of
rules which decide upon sections groupping, since imho
"No known packages available..."
is the actual section which could describe 'Ignore'-ed entries, since
there is nothing to Depend/Recommend/Suggest, thus those entries should
not be listed as D/R/S-ed in the binary packages. If we follow those
priorities levels, it would be clean, if as soon as some package
(official/non-official) becomes available, corresponding non-Ignore
priority is given to a corresponding binary package.
But altogether, since
> we do not care about the size of it and so we do not need this extra
> category and use as lowest priority "Suggests".
I could adjust blends-inject to use Suggests priority for those referred by
the source name, whenever there are no packages available, and just rely
on the logic of blends scripts while they are constructing the
> 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
well... to me 'Ignore:' is just a priority for binary packages
dependencies... whatever is listed in tasks files is already something
of interest to be packaged, or at least listed (may be could never be
packaged due to licensing issue) so we have better grasp of what is our
coverage of things. But having "Ignore" gives direct hint to that there
is no binary packages available anywhere (thus it is not a part of
> 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".
Quite often, binary packages, when come to existence, carry
different name from the original source name (i.e. all those python-
modules), thus need to be tuned up anyways; that was my reasoning: as
by default no priority is listed (thus Ignore goes default), and as soon
as some priority appears (D/R/S) -- entry gets replaced possibly with a
new name of the binary package.
Just wanted to share my bits on this; I do not mind making Suggests a
default minimal level I inject. I was just trying to follow the
Keep in touch www.onerussian.com
Yaroslav Halchenko www.ohloh.net/accounts/yarikoptic