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

Re: configuration of base packages



Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Is there no way to have a package be priority important and skipped by
> > tasksel?

[ Meaning debootstrap not tasksel, but I think you figured that out. ]

> :-/
>
> I'd like to be able to automatically determine what to download and
> install from the Packages file as far as possible. I've been using the
> required and important priorities for this with additions, which seemed
> to make sense: after boot-floppies is installed, we need all the packages
> that are absolutely necessary for the proprer functioning of the system
> (required), and all the packages you'd be lost without (important), and
> any extra packages necessary to actually get at new packages (pcmcia-cs
> for your network card, or ppp/pppoe for your dialup adaptor, eg).
> 
> I could recreate the base section, I suppose, and use that. I've been
> resisting that since important is almost exactly what I want anyway, and
> doesn't seem to have any particularly better uses.

Hm, this is really your call as the maintainer of debootstrap, but an
alternative way to look at is it debootstrap could just be responsible
for installing enough packages to let base-config set up a full base
system. Which does imply some form of base. It might also be more useful
in chroot building too though -- most of us don't need a MTA in our
chroot.

Haven't you already sort of given in the direction of base by
special-casing in pcmcia-cs and ppp though? Or to look at it another
way, if base is required + important + (special cases), it's not too bad
to subtract out some other special cases.

But if you're dead set against this, I can make base-config run eximconfig
after it uses apt to install the system, iff eximconfig still exists at
that point. (I expect plenty of people will be picking other mailers, and
those in the know might be grumbling at debootstrap for insisting on
downloading a mailer they immeditaly replace..)

-- 
see shy jo



Reply to: