Re: master2files / potato
* "Adam" == Adam Di Carlo <adam@onshore.com> wrote:
Adam> "Martin Bialasinski" <martin@internet-treff.uni-koeln.de> writes:
>> I currently try to create a dependancy checking for the new
>> packages. The main thing is how to handle the fact, that the new task
>> packages won't list all the libs the "contained" packages need. Apt
>> will pull them for itself. There are some things I am still unsure
>> about like virtual packages or testing for the different archs.
Adam> Listing packages that will be brought in is not necessary and
Adam> distracting anyhow.
Adam> Getting it fully tested is something that others will do.
I think it is necessary to do this. I have to determine if all
dependancies can be fulfilled on the archs the task is specified
for. And secondly, if two tasks conflict directly or
indirectly. With X tasks and profile packages, you don't want to
determine this manually.
Adam> Martin, if humanly possible, please commit *something*.
Raphael pointed me to yacs, which I will use to widly reuse code.
Adam> I don't really get what the strategy is... I thought we were
Adam> going to rip out the task / profiles from the CVS area entirely,
Adam> and upload them as a batch to the Debian archive itself with
Adam> special naming (task-* and profile-* perhaps).
This is one part. And it is technically very easy. The only thing is
to determine the purpose of the different tasks and then to determine
the contents of these. I posted a list some time ago, as I am really
not qualified to determine the content of e.g. task-c-devel.
The second thing is the dependancy check. If task-foo and task-bar
conflict indirectly, then this has to be either resolved by removing
something, or the task/profile selector has to know about
this. Otherwise a user will wonder why nothing got installed and he
gets these strange "conflicts" messages form apt-get, when he
selected task-foo and task-bar.
Adam> What would be in the boot-floppies CVS area is just the little
Adam> interface to help the user select these, right?
Correct.
Ciao,
Martin
Reply to: