Quoting Richard Owlett (2016-07-15 15:56:37)
> On 7/15/2016 7:35 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> Quoting Richard Owlett (2016-07-15 13:29:45)
>>>>> I started similar threads in 2014.
>>> primarily https://lists.debian.org/5471F258.5020200@cloud85.net
>>> also http://lists.debian.org/521F660F.4070008@cloud85.net
>>
>> Ahh, I didn't recognize your name (sorry!), but certainly remember
>> our previous conversations. :-)
>>
>> Last words from you was "I'll try it." about Boxer. I am curious how
>> that went.
>
> At the time it didn't. I don't recall why. Yesterday I searched for
> "Debian boxer" [w/o quotes] using https://duckduckgo.com/ . I did not
> come away satisfied I understood your goal/rationale/??? .
>
> What should I read? in what order? Assume I had never heard of
> boxer before.
I suggest that you start from the email I wrote back then: That was
written with the assumption of you being new to Boxer :-)
I have no longer essay about Boxer yet, if that is what you are asking.
>>>> Do you perhaps mean packages explicitly installed (as opposed to
>>>> auto-installed due to dependencies)?
>>>
>>> No. How many choices am I given.
>>> [I favor disabling "Recommends" in favor of moving the desired
>>> elements to "Depends" of custom metapackages.]
>>
>> Seems you are mixing terms here:
>>
>> "Recommends" and "Depends" is tied to packages, not menu items.
>
> Problem with my writing style. I tend to use [...] and {...} to
> set off thoughts that are loosely related to my main point. In
> this case my primary metric is reducing the total number of menu
> items. A secondary metric is reducing the number of "unnecessary"
> packages installed. [That sentence demonstrates another of my
> style choices. I use "..." to highlight a word used in a not
> quite literal manner.]
Thanks for clarifying. I believe I understand that comment now.
Are you aware that generally disabling package recommendations is a
misuse, which is impossible to support by Debian. I sincerely hope you
can be convinced to change, because that style cannot work as a Debian
Blend.
> I still don't know if my target would precisely meet the definition of
> a Pure Blend. But I don't see referring to to it as a Debian
> derivative as it object files will be direct from the Debian
> repository.
A Debian derivative is when you use Debian as a starting point but have
different opinions than Debian on how to go from there.
A Debian Blend is when you want to play along with Debian (and a Pure
Blend is when fully succeeding in playing along).
Example: Debian promise to preserve local changes to files below /etc
but expect no no local changes below /usr/share. If you like Debian
populating /usr/share but bypass APT and dpkg for changing stuff in
/usr/share, then you are deriving, not blending.
...and same for e.g. generally disabling package recommendations.
> If it were found useful it would be likely distributed as a custom
> preseed.cfg file and some custom metapackages which included *ONLY*
> standard Debian executables. For at least my own use there would be a
> Tcl/Tk script to generate the preseed.cfg file.
I already created a tool to create preseeding files - Boxer, in Perl not
Tcl/Tk. I have no plans to rewrite nor abandon it, so if Tcl/Tk is
important to you then it seems we are in friendly competition rather
than direct collaboration there.
- Jonas
--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature