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

Re: Bug#758116: Allow to select Blends selection during installation - just "DE", "Web server", "Mail server" is NOT enough

Hi Ole,

Ole Streicher <olebole@debian.org> (2016-05-23):
> Hi Cyril,
> Just to clarify this, since I was the one who actually did and
> uploaded the change:
> It was not my intention to hijack the installation process. In some
> earlier mail on bug#758116, you mentioned that you cannot promise that
> you don't know if/when you have time to look into the integration of the
> Blends into the installer yourself [1]. For me, this sounds that we have
> to do it ourself if we want to get it in. And I tried it openly: The
> current solution was proposed in the bug#758116 [2], which was mirrored
> to debian-boot@l.d.o, and I asked explicitly for comments before the
> upload. Since no-one replied, I re-assigned the bug to src:blends (since
> this was the proposed place to actually fix it) and uploaded the new
> version with the package priority needed to get it into the basic system.
> I feel now a bit unhappy that there was no discussion about the topic
> before the upload, but I don't see what I could have done better
> (otherwise please give me a hint so that I can learn from it). However,
> as I said, that was not meant to be hijacking. If we find a better
> solution that does not need to include the debian-blends-tasks.desc, we
> can remove it. IMO it *is* however a good idea to keep tasksel using
> everything it finds in /usr/share/tasksel/descs/; this enables a
> relatively easy way to customize Debian here. Within Debian, we as a
> community should be able to find a solution that does not need to secure
> the installation process from "whatever people have managed to get into
> a basic system".

Let me start by confirming what Holger wrote: I wasn't assuming bad
faith on your part, even though I see how you could think I was; sorry
about that.

(Not trying to look for excuses, just candidly sharing my thoughts.)

The most annoying part of my job as a d-i release manager is that I just
can't follow each and every enhancement request (bug fix, behaviour
change, defaults update, etc.). I don't think it would be a good idea to
block on my giving a go for all of them anyway, so I can certainly
understand why people would just go ahead, especially after having
contacted debian-boot@ and asked for feedback, like you did.

Unfortunately, some changes are only noticed while we're in the process
of releasing, which takes time and energy from various teams, in a
specific order. For example, fixing a simple bug in two components
delayed the release by 2+ days, even though we tried to cheat a bit and
trigger an extra britney run to speed up things between two dinstalls.

In this particular case, this problem was emphasized by the fact I
haven't been able to keep up with debian-boot@ for several months in a
row, so a bunch of changes piled up and were only discovered during this
round of testing. That's not your fault; mind you, I sometimes have to
deal with personal matters.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: