Re: Desktop task broken on !(i386/powerpc)
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 02:44:14PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > Ah, no, there where a bunch of people who didn't like it, especially as it
> > started breaking on all sides when kde was uninstallable on non-mainstream
> > arches, and we were told that this was the right true way. Please don't go
> > into revisionism at this time. I agree that it may be too late for this,
> > altough maybe not, but we choose this approach in full knowledge.
>
> If you would like to resurrect the potato tasksel and shove it back into
> sarge with all of its misfeatures bugs and lacks, you're really free to
> be my guest. Otherwise, stop whining, and please stop misrepresnting
> what I've said.
Well, nobody said that, still a splitted desktop task would make sense,
especially during times where the KDE desktop was uninstallable, which i recon
happened during a non-negligible slice of time in the recent (err middle to
recent) time. I am perfectly aware that it is late, and i did *NOT* argue that
we should fix this, altough i believe it would be nice. I personally think
that this would have been considered RC, but since i am not prepared to take
the time to provide the code fixing it before the sarge release, it is of no
matter.
> > Yes, agreed on this. That said, his insitence that this was the right way
> > in the past didn't encourage volunteers, i would guess.
>
> Saying "no" is the most important job the maintainer of a software
> system can do, and saying "no" does not imply that you think that your
> way is the only right way or that you don't listen for better ideas.
Well, that was the the impression i got though, and it was not only you, many
people where telling over these past 6+ month that splitting the Desktop task
was a big no-go, so what should we understand from it ? I personally believe
that it is a usability problem, but as said above, i don't have the time for
fixing it, so ...
> I use a consistent set of rules, as documented in the tasksel source,
> for all decisions involving the contents of tasksel tasks. If I just
I don't care at this point, and i bet you Joe Random User will not care also,
all he will say : how the hell can i install only gnome or only kde or only
twm, so that the debian X tasks fits on the small disk of that old box i am
trying to run as X terminal.
> made decisions on an ad-hoc basis, the set of tasks would look like they
> did in slink -- a completly unusable mess. If someone proposes a better
Well, it was most usable than it is right now though. right now we could as
well have a question asking if you want the desktop packages installed or not,
and skip the whole tasksel logic.
> set of rules, I will follow them. I did not even originate most of the
> rules I currently use.
>
> You're going to have a hard time showing me that your set of rules is
> better if you continue to demonstrate that you're not even aware of the
> current set, much less aware of the reasons behind them.
It is not the set of rules who matter, it is the visible result.
But please, don't take it bad, this is my opinion, and it is in no way a
critic of your work or anything, and i apologize if it may sound so.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: