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

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

On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 12:09:11PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
> >> 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
> this.

I've seen this and will step in if needed.
> > 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.

Fine for me.
> > 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.

This is what I've thought - thus the hint.
> 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.

Fully ACK.

> > 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,

Fine for me since less hackish.

> and I put them into
> debian/control.stub of debian-astro.

I'd prefer the first suggestion.
> > 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.

Ahh, OK.  I had assumed that it would be possible to call tasksel (may
be with some proper options) to simulate this in a more simple way.
Thanks a lot for all your highly appreciated work



Reply to: