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