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

Re: Every second year we are talking about a proper installer

Hi Ole,

On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 05:47:32PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
> thank you very much for your feedback!

You are welcome.  (I'm pretty aware about the situation to do things and
git no (timely) feedback.)
> Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> writes:
> > No veto.  I agree its a compromise working around a missing feature in
> > tasksel.  I'm a bit astonished that tasksel does not support any submenu
> > (I somehow might dreamt about it - I never checked).
> tasksel currently supports one level of submenu, and this could be
> extended. BUT: this submenu stuff in tasksel is a dirty hack. It just
> resorts the entries so that everything belonging to a submenu is grouped
> together, and adds a "..." in front of each entry. No fold-in or such.
> For us (>>250 tasks) this is unsuitable.

> > This could be generated automatically by the Blends framework either by
> > automatically add everything where "Metapackage: no" is not set or by
> > an additional flag inside the tasks to have more detailed control.
> I added a default $blend-all task to the blends package that just
> recommends all other tasks of the package. This is probably a good
> default.
> If needed, I would propose a new flag "Install:" which defaults to "yes"
> (so, by default all packages are included). Set it to "no" if the
> task shall not installed by default.

> >> * Debian Astro
> >
> > As far as I have seen your latest commits (at least your private mail to
> > me) Debian Astro was missing.  Please double check.
> This was since I generated the screenshot with Debian Jessie, and there
> is not astro-tasks package on Jessie.

> >> I'd rather not include Debian Science -- I would see no user base for it
> >> as a whole (and we can only use a single default install).
> >
> > I agree that installing all tasks might not make any sense.  However, we
> > might agree upon a small set of tasks like tools, typesetting and
> > viewing.  A proper description of the science-all task might give a hint
> > to the users about all those other tasks.  This on one hand uses the
> > chance to advertise Debian Science and on the other hand is installing
> > packages all scientists might want on their machine.
> The problem here is that tasksel does not provide any further help than
> what is on the screen. So, if you have a description, please feed it
> into the blends package.

This is what I mean.
> >> What about Debian Junior?
> > I would add this (even id Debian Junior is quite silent :-().
> OK.
> >> Debian Multimedia?
> > No idea.  Lets decide Debian Multimedia maintainers.
> >> And there are a few blends, that don't have tasks lists: Debian Design,
> >> FreedomBox, DebianParl.
> > Jonas?
> >> And, finally, there is NeuroDebian which I guess could be included, but
> >> this would require some input from them.
> > I'm keen on hearing this. :-P
> I am really surprised that we have a blend that is in a really nice
> shape and does/did a lot of promotion, but is nearly invisible within
> Debian. I even have no ideas whether NeuroDebian has "tasks".

They don't.

> What is the way to contact them? 

NeuroDebian packages are maintained by

   NeuroDebian Team <team@neuro.debian.net>

and if you write to this list you get answers from Michael Hanke and
Yaroslav Halchenko.

> > Thanks a lot for your effort
> I pushed some changes to the blends package: mainly the creation of the
> package with the tasks list for the installer tasksel, and the automated
> creation of the $blend-all metapackages.

I noticed this.  BTW also in the blends-dev code we have a GSoC rewrite
to make use of UDD.  The main pro for this is that we are able to create
"Architecture: any" metapackages.  This is very important since we have
several dependencies that are not available on all architectures.
Unfortunately the project is as unfinished as the tasks pages.  Just to
let you know.
> I am not an uploader of the package, and I would ask to review this
> stuff.

I'm fine with the review and have updated the Uploaders field - so feel
free to upload (in general - I'm just checking a fix for #819425).

> If it appears fine, we should upload ASAP.

I'm currently checking on the example of Debian Science packages.  I
noticed that it contains some information that might not be true any
more.  Please check file config/control whether you want
debian-astronomy* be mentioned there.

I also noticed lintian warnings that science-astronomy* are transitional
packages but not marked as such (metapackage/extra).  I'm not sure how
we should deal with this.  I'm temped to manually hack this in after
preparing the d/control file (despite the first line you should not
edit).  IMHO this is while beeing hacky a safer solution rather than
fiddling around with devtools/blend-gen-control to add this "/extra"
under to be defined conditions.

> I'd expect some
> discussion about the inclusion of a new "Priority: important" package,
> and we need the changed blends-dev package to actually create the
> $blend-all tasks for all affected blends, which again need to go via
> NEW. So, let's do it while NEW is quite short and all are relaxed. And
> we need some testing, preferred with the next installer prerelease.

I fully agree.  My last question is what I need to do to reproduce the
tasksel output you had.

Kind regards



Reply to: