Re: Tweaking tasks
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 06:14:47PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
>Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> Following up from the thread about lack of space...
>>
>> A couple of weeks back I rewrote the task support in debian-cd to deal
>> with the change from tasks-in-Packages to task meta-packages. After a
>> lot of local testing, today is the first time the weeklies have been
>> built using the new code. There's probably some more tweaking due for
>> Recommends handling yet, but this seems to work at the moment.
>
>Wow, that's a relief! Thank you immensely.
No problem... I dropped the ball on this ages ago, and totally forgot
about it until you reminded me recently :-/
>> The last package on amd64 CD#1 is libgjs0b. task-desktop fits on CD#1,
>> but task-gnome-desktop is ~90 packages into CD#2. gnome-shell-common
>> doesn't even make CD#1, which means the desktop will be a
>> little... sparse. The full sorted package list is at
>
>Is this with or without Recommends of tasks?
This is with Recommends of tasks, yes. It wouldn't go very far
otherwise.
>Does it omit the (probably uncessary) Recommends of packages
>recommended by tasks?
No, not yet at least. To be honest, I've had a lot of pressure to just
add all the Recommends anyway recently to match what people would
install by default. That's what I've done so far.
The code changes should be reasonably easy to follow if you want to
look - see the new version of tools/update_tasks. It plumbs into the
existing set of tasks, generating task-{essential,full}-$desktop based
on the task packages that we find listed in tasksel-data. Then the
existing sort_deps code is used to pull in the dependencies and
recommends for the task packages. This seems to work OK without having
to make major structural changes to debian-cd. Review/comments
welcome, of course... :-)
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com
"Further comment on how I feel about IBM will appear once I've worked out
whether they're being malicious or incompetent. Capital letters are forecast."
Matthew Garrett, http://www.livejournal.com/users/mjg59/30675.html
Reply to: