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

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must be priority:standard and not make a mess out of tasksel menu

Hi Sam,

Am 31.01.2017 um 16:26 schrieb Sam Hartman:
> If you go back one meeting further, my interpretation is that the consensus of
> the committee seems to be that ultimately this decision belongs to the
> installer team.
> That is, in this case, a number of members on the TC seem to believe
> that the installer team gets to decide whether/how the installer makes
> it easy to install blends.
> If they don't want to do that for stretch, that's a decision within
> their pervue that we clearly don't have the votes to override.

Hmm, IMO there are two things here: First, in our constitution, the
installer team has no specific granted rights, apart from being
maintainers of the relevant packages. This makes the conflict primarily
a conflict between developers having different opinions about how to
solve a certain problem. A decision here falls under the rights
granted to the Technical Team by the Project leader. And I would expect
that a decision would be made on some technical foundation.

Second, I would expect a bit more moderation. A major part of the
discussion here was still covering either the question whether it is
policy conform/useful/hijacking to add something to the installer
tasksel menu by making the package priority "important", or by
discussing the (rejected then by d-i) compromise solution with an
additional selection.

What was however *missing* is a discussion of whether the menu in its
current form may be a compromise -- the original bug report was based on
an outdated version. Holger, the original author of the bug stated (#144):

Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org>
> indeed, this is what it looks today. Just verified myself too.
> And this *is* still pretty confusing, though admitly better than it was
> half a year ago. 

We all agree here that the menu is confusing, and that the Blends
entries don't make it better. The primary question here is however: does
it really make it so much worse that we can't include it in Stretch?
Compared to the LXQt menu entry addition? At least I doubt that (not
surprisingly), and I tried to put my arguments here.

When we had the first version, one of the main arguments was that the
people would get confused by entries that they don't understand (the
items were just the Blends names then). We took this serious and changed
them to well-understandable names. What makes the "Blends" section in
tasksel IMO more understandable than the "Desktop environment" section
(What the heck is Mate? And what is the difference between LXDE and
LXQt? I myself must google to find that out!) We also limited the
entries to the blends for which the menu would be really useful, which
covers the "too much entries" argument. In the moment, I don't see a
real other argument; however Cyril stated that his remarks were not
adressed. They were. He then just didn't make further comments.

And this is what I just don't take; I expect some technical discussion,
and if we can't come to a compromise ourself, than we need some
moderation (and, if nothing helps, a decision) from the Technical
Commitee. This is at least how I read
<https://www.debian.org/devel/tech-ctte>. It is *not* about just "hey,
d-i decided that way. Sorry, we can't do anything here". It is about to
help us (d-blends and d-i) to sort out the technical aspects, to weight
them and to come to a solution where everyone can agree as much as possible.

Best regards


Reply to: