[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)

Quoting Markus Koschany (2014-10-27 13:09:09)
> On 27.10.2014 11:04, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> Quoting Andreas Tille (2014-10-27 07:19:27)
>>> 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.

Let me clarify: *My* reason for not taking part in many discussions here 
in the past have been the above.

>>> 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".
>> I am not surprised that you are blind to the reason I bring up.

Let me clarify: Strange how my actual reason can be "seen differently".  
Gotta be something else that is seen differently - perhaps simply that 
Andreas is not looking at all (read: not really commenting on what I 
wrote), but instead continues to talk about his original point.

> I think you misunderstood Andreas statement above and sensed something 
> negative which wasn't there in the first place.

What I sense is that Andreas and I talk past each other.  And I sense 
frustration about lack of collaboration in evolving the tool(s) for 
making blends.  The latter contributes, I guess, to the former.

> Although I am quite new to the project, I have no doubt that all 
> Blends projects could discuss any kind of problems with the tools on 
> this list and find a solution that benefits them all.

I completely agree.

> However to start any kind of improvement you must be aware of that 
> something needs to be addressed. That's the simple quintessence of the 
> above paragraph.

Not sure what you point is with above.

If you mean to imply that that improvements on how to make blends is 
quintessential to discuss on this list, then I disagree.

> For me and Debian Games blends-dev just works. I can also live with 
> Section: metapackages because it seems to be the obvious place for 
> metapackages. When I want to remove all packages in one go, I run 
> »apt-mark auto <metapackage«.

That sounds strange to me (and is independent on use of blends-dev or 
not): Do pulled-in packages really get removed too with "apt-mark auto 
<metapackage>"?  I fail to follow how that can be possible: When APT 
skips making a note at install time that a package is auto-installed, 
how can it be sure that that package is ok to remove again, just because 
it happens to be part of a metapackage getting removed? What if same 
package is also pulled in be other metapackages not being removed?

> It is quite understandable that different people and projects have 
> different needs but I don't see a reason why we could not discuss 
> flaws in blends-dev and try to fix them, so that all projects will see 
> improvements not only a single one.

Neither do I.  Not sure what your point is.

If you have read my previous posts as being against collaboration, then 
that's a misunderstanding: I merely explained one (real, not 
theoretical) reason for the lack of some expected/wished collaboration 
in the past, not a reason to avoid collaborating as a principle.

 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: signature

Reply to: