Re: Should D-I install console-setup with kbd and console-tools or not?
On Monday 15 March 2010, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> > -apt-install console-setup || true
> > +apt-install --with-recommends console-setup || true
> Yes, trivial, but somehow I don't like this. I don't see why c-s has to
> be the package that ensures that kbd is installed. What if for some
> reason some future version of c-s reduces the recommendation to only a
Hmm. Given that you say c-s is hardly functional without kbd that would be
a rather strange decision :-) I believe in letting dependencies do the
work wherever possible in Debian.
> I'd do this:
> if bds_or_hurd; then
> apt-install keyboard-configuration || true
> apt-install kbd || true
> apt-install console-setup || true
I have no huge objection to this. If you say it makes more sense I'm happy
to do that (except that I'll do 'apt-install console-setup kbd || true';
because of all interdependencies it's better to install them together).
> BTW, since currently neither console-setup-udeb nor kbd-chooser work on
> hurd or bsd, how is the installer going to configure the keyboard there?
> Kbd-chooser doesn't exist on these architectures.
Simple answer: it doesn't. The porters apparently haven't gotten around to
that. Something like that is really up to the porters for new ports and
not the "core" D-I team.
> > Does that mean console-setup itself is essentially useless on kfreebsd
> > and hurd?
> Almost useless. I think the fonts can be used and one can also use the
> package to build linux keymaps on a hurd or bsd host. But this is not
> that important to make the strong dependency a bad thing. Tell me if
> you want this.
I'll implement your suggestion above for kbd-chooser and am happy to leave
the decision regarding dependencies to you. With the above solution it no
longer matters to D-I.
P.S. I just see that the subject of the mail is not correct. It should be
kbd *or* console-tools, with preference for the former of course.