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

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

Hi Andreas,

Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 05:47:32PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
>> >> 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.

I've started a discussion on debian-science (Cc: in debian-blends) about

>> 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).

OK, I'll wait a few more days (so that others have a chance to complain).
If no issues arise, I would upload this at the weekend.

>> 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.

No. I finally think they are really just transitional and shouldn't be
installed as new. I should make them almost invisible.

We should, however, create a "better" debian-science homepage mentioning
its spin-offs (DebianMed, DebiChem, Debian-Astro, NeuroDebian). And the
science-tasks package should Depend: on the -tasks packages of the
spinoffs, IMO. This would make Debian-Science more an umbrella.

> 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.

The most pragmatic solution would be to include them in
debian/control.stub and remove from the tasks list. Or we remove the
tasks from debian-science completely, and I put them into
debian/control.stub of debian-astro.

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

That was a hack to get you impressed: I just booted from a "Jessie"
image, and before the "tasksel" appeared, I changed to a virtual console
and copied the "debian-blends-tasks.desc" file (from the blends package
git repository) to /usr/share/tasksel/descs/ . This simulates the
installation of our new "blends-tasks" package from debootstrap. 

As far as I understand the creation of the initial packages, it takes
everything that is marked as "Priority: important". However, I have am
not sure if this is correct.

Best regards


Reply to: