Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)
On 06.12.2016 10:37, Holger Levsen wrote:
> And this *is* still pretty confusing, though admitly better than it was
> half a year ago.
The current implementation has a popcon of >5000, without a single
complaint or confusion documented in the web within the last six months.
This is at least *some* empirical evidence that it is not "pretty
confusing", and again I would ask you to show any better empirical data
here to support your own point.
> and it will only get worse, if we would keep it this way… We have *many* more
> blends in Debian… Debian Parl, Debian Junor, Debian Edu come to my mind
> immediatly.
> why list some and not some others?
The "single checkbox" is not usable for all blends, since it requires a
"one size fits all" solution. For Debian Edu, you already stated
yourself that it is useless. Debian Junior and Debian Parl didn't opt
in. I therefore don't see a danger that the list will grow endlessly
before Stretch.
> and that this bug should not be about this tasksel menu but *about this
> was implemented*, which is by forcing an unneeded package on each and
> every Debian system under the sun. (priority: important…)
I already answered to this: there is no technical reason to have the
blends task in an individual package; technically it could also be put
into tasksel-data itself.
However, this would require action from the tasksel team every time
something changes in the blends task. d-i is already overloaded, and it
will not help if we put another responsibility on top of that. So, it is
a good solution to separate the responsibility of the "Special tasks"
item to the blends team.
Compared to an integrated (into tasksel-data) solution, the size impact
is minimal: mainly the overhead of having an additional package there.
If we care about this overhead, the problem would apply to tasksel-data
as well.
Best regards
Ole
Reply to: