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

Bug#825004: blends-dev: undesired new Task $blend-all package



Hi Holger,

Am 22.05.2016 um 12:45 schrieb Holger Levsen:
> since 0.6.93 blends-dev creates a new $blend-all package which is *not*
> useful for all blends, so there should be a way to disable that.
> 
> In the case of debian-edu it creates an education-all package which
> depends on packages which conflict which each other (eg standalone and
> main-server, but there are more).
> 
> For the Debian Edu usecase such a $blends-all package must not be created.
> 
> Please make this behaviour optional and opt-in. As it stands this is a
> major regression on the usability of the package.

I am not sure whether I understand you specific problem correctly: Do
you want to have a way to select individual tasks, or a way to disable
it for the whole blend?

The first option is already there, although opt-out: You may specify an
"Install: False" in the task header, and the task will not be in the
list. The idea of opt-out was that usually our packages should not
conflict, and harddisk space is not expensive anymore. So having
additional unused packages is better than missing expected packages. But
this may be changed ofcourse, if we agree on that (I can live well with
both).

The second option (don't create the -all task at all) is not there yet.
It could be done implicitely: if all tasks have "Install: false" (resp.
no task has "Install: true" if we agree on this), then the -all task
would be empty and could just be not created. If you agree here, I could
it implement this way; but maybe I would need to request some help since
my Perl knowledge (the logic in blends-dev is implemented in Perl) is
!"§&&*'.

Disabling the -all package completely would however mean that in the
however-it-is-implemented "blends" selection during installation
(discussed in #758116), selecting this task would install no additional
packages, so it would probably wise to remove it there as well.

Best regards

Ole


Reply to: