Re: #793667: forced depends (instead of recommends) using blends-dev (was gosa-plugin-netgroups not pulled-in when upgrading from Debian Edu squeeze mainserver)
Hi Ole,
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 09:51:09AM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
> Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> writes:
> > Since a long time I'm wondering whether we should craft tasks files to
> > express what we "really" want (like specifying mostly all dependencies
> > as "Recommends" and leave the "Depends" for what we really mean as
> > Depends. Since there are the frequently discusses drawbacks and
> > compatibility issues with the current tasks files this is nothing that
> > should be done quickly.
>
> Why not?
Your proposal is very good but not *quick*. ;-)
> In my opinion it is quite straightforward, *and* we get a
> documentation as a nice bonus: /read all imperatives below as "we should" ;-)/
>
> * Create a document that describes the (new) format, and put it on
> blends.d.o. The first line of the new format should be
> "Format: http://blends.debian.org/tasks-format/1.0";
>
> * Extend the parser in blends-dev and in webtools to recognise this line
> and use it as switch between current and new format
>
> * Start to convert the own blends. This probably is as simple as a
> couple of simple sed scripts.
>
> * Identify all build-depends of blends-dev, apply the sed scripts to get
> a patch, and file bug reports for them
>
> This does not look like really difficult; probably the hardest part is
> to review the current format.
Its not difficult - it just needs to be done. I'm currently doing a
very bad job in the latter. For instance using the code developed in
GSoC *three* years ago[1] is also not really difficult. It just needs
more testing which I always pushed to "some later point in time not that
close to a release." Meanwhile we are developing two parallel toolsets
(blends-dev and the webtools) in parallel since we do not get the
enhanced tools into production. I'd hesitate to implement your
suggestion in two code bases.
> Aside from the changes
>
> Recommends: --> Suggests:
I think Recommends should stay Recommends.
> Depends: --> Recommends:
+1
> new Depends: for real hard dependencies
+1
> I would f.e. propose to do as well in this step:
>
> Pgk-Description: --> Description
> Pkg-Url --> Url (or consequently use Homeppage:)
Fine for me but we need to find a new field name for the Description of
the metapackage itself (which was the reason why the Pkg- prefix was
invented once prospective packages came up inside tasks files).
> and would also include the changes needed to include a default selection
> of packages as installation option for the Debian installer (currently
> an optional "Install: false", but see bug #825004, and also see the
> discussion in bug #758116).
Fine for me.
> These steps will make the change possible, bring inform the dependencies
> nicely (with a patch) about the change, and finally allows to stick them
> with the old format if there are good reasons for it (f.e. if the depend
> on the old format elsewhere).
Currently I do not see any reason why we should depend from the old
format.
> Unsolved in this scheme is the integration into the blends-dev document;
> maybe it could just link to the document. If we create the format spec
> in .rst or .md, we can easily also provide a web-readable version.
>
> What do you think?
I think we should *first* bring blends-dev 0.7[2] and the UDD based
webtools into production. This would enable us to have only a *single*
point of changes for your proposal since we only need to fix the UDD
importer. Anything else is normalised via UDD. And as I said in the
beginning that's not really "quick".
But yes, I like your suggestions a lot in general.
Kind regards
Andreas.
[1] git://anonscm.debian.org/blends/blends-gsoc.git
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: