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

Re: Metapackages in "Section: metapackages" or not (Was: visibility of Debian Pure Blends)

Hi Jonas,

On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 10:06:50PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Andreas Tille (2014-10-26 17:17:37)
> > It is not mandatory by blends-dev.  [implementation details skipped] 
> > For me it becomes more and more evident that we need to discuss more 
> > on this list about needs of different Blends and how to correctly 
> > implement this.
> Well, one reason for lack of discussion in the past is that (as far as I 
> am aware) only one tool for creating blends have existed: blends-dev.

I see it differently.  I would have loved to discuss about features of
blends-dev but the responses in the past tended to be zero.  Not even
bug reports about features were filed.  So I try to "overhear" what
might be needed and #720199 was the actual motivation to implement the
feature to add "Section: metapackages".
> Assuming you mean discussion (also) across tools, I look forward to some 
> friendly competition, now that boxer is finally in a reasonably usable 
> state (after 2 failed attempts, first one dating back to February 2011).

I admit I consider it a bit strange to anounce it that way.  In
principle I'm not against competition but I think a hand full of people
should be able to find a common solution.  Not to say that we had a GSoC
last year to rewrite blends-dev and all people reading here should have
noticed the discussion and could have suggested their wanted features.

I'm not against "friendly competition" - but staying silent when the
chance for cooperation is given comes quite unexpected to me.

Kind regards



Reply to: