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

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)



Hi Raphaël and all,

Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> (2016-12-08):
> I'm thus suggesting that blends-tasks should be removed and merged in
> tasksel-data. At the same time, we should fix the installer to bypass
> that confusing tasksel screen that we always get by default.
> 
> On Wed, 07 Dec 2016, Philip Hands wrote:
> > It could be much improved by making it more obvious that the heading is
> > a heading.  Even if we're unable to stop headings having a checkbox, we
> > could change the text and the hierarchy slightly to be something like
> > this:
> > 
> > 	[ ]  === Debian Desktop Environments:
> > 	[x]  ... Gnome
> [...]
> > Would that cheer people up without needing a major rewrite of tasksel?
> 
> That would be a good change, yes.
> 
> But more importantly, we need to not show that page at all. I would like
> to suggest a first screen:
> 
> Install packages for a:
> 
>   [X] standard desktop
>   [ ] standard server
>   [ ] minimal server
>   [ ] Show me more options
> 
> You only see "tasksel" if you check the "Show me more options" which
> should be unchecked by default. There's code that translates each option
> into default selections at the tasksel level.
> 
> For instance, if you check "standard desktop" (checked by default like
> currently, then it enables the "GNOME" task (or whatever was set in the
> "desktop" kernel command line option) and the "standard installation".
> 
> If you check standard server, then you get "standard" + "ssh".
> If you check minimal server, then you get only "ssh".
> 
> If you select "Show me more options", you can see the effect of each
> option as you have some tasks already selected.
> 
> If we do that, then IMO it's fine if the tasksel screen is also cluttered
> with blends.
> 
> Christian and Cyril, what are your thoughts on this? Do you think that if
> we come up with a patch implementing the above, we could get it in
> stretch? What would be the last delay to come up with such a patch?

While it's clear to me we need to fix the blends situation at some point
before the release (couldn't find time to do so yet; last resort option
is masking all of them entirely), I'm rather dubious about changing the
package selection/tasksel screen at this point of the release cycle.


KiBi.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: