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

Re: Any news about Blends in tasks selection (Was: Debian Installer Jessie Beta 2 release)


On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 08:47:19AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > Would this use case also be a reason for creating a personal blend?  Or
> > even an official one?
> Jonas has answered this question.  I'd like to add that I'm no fan of
> "personal" things since you spoil the idea of forming a team around the
> idea.

Yes, I agree.  However, sometimes the needs are so specific that it
doesn't make sense to do them on a larger scale.  I'd make the packages
public, but I wouldn't suggest that a blend for very limited use
deserves a prominent position in the installer.

But as Jonas pointed out, if the blend only does the setup for running a
single application and any application can be chosen at install time,
that increases the audience to a point where it may deserve that

I'll consider if I want to drive that effort.  I'd really like to see
this happen, but I'm also trying to limit new projects I start, so that
I have enough time to handle the things I do properly.  If more people
(besides Jonas) are interested, please let me know privately.  If you
want to be the driver, definitely let me know, too. :-)

I'll send a status update by the end of the month.

> Well, these are good questions.  They are abit hard to answer in a
> situation when we are discussing about how to properly install the
> currently existing Blends.

Indeed. Someone should remember to bring them back up once that question
has been answered (and the answer has been implemented).

> > So it installs a package which changes configuration of other packages
> > when it is installed?  That sounds very ugly...  Isn't there a better
> > way to preconfigure a system?
> Yes.  The better way is to convince the single package maintainers.  The
> longish discussion is in bug #311188.

Reading that raises questions regarding the configuration editing tool I
wrote about some time ago.  I'll follow up to that thread (on -devel

> > Oh, and I have another question; this seems very similar to "tasks"; how
> > is it different?
> Each Blend creates metapackages and a <blenname>-tasks package to feed
> tasksel.  Yes, we are using this term actively.  The difference is more
> in the content that the tasks are specific for fields of interest but
> the used technique is the same (which is intentional to enable
> integration into the installer easily).

Ok.  Is it supposed to be possible to install more than one blend
simultaneously?  Is that technically prevented with Conflicts?

> > > Enhancements / patches(source is in package source of blends source
> > > package) are always welcome.
> > 
> > I might write a patch, but knowing myself I probably don't get around to
> > actually do that.
> ... as always with documentation. :-)  The same applies to me to some
> extend (and I'm not proud about this).

No, I'm not proud of it either.  But as Feynman said: "you [yourself]
are the easiest person to fool."  So I take some pride in admitting it;
telling myself otherwise would have been easier. ;-)


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: