Bug#846002: Debian Installer Stretch RC 1 release

[Ole Streicher <olebole@debian.org>]

Hi Bjørn,

Am 17.01.2017 um 10:28 schrieb Bjørn Mork:
> To me it looks like a sandbox fight which started with the creative use
> of "Priority: important". Now it appears that the party starting the
> fight thinks the other party should stop throwing sand until "mommy"
> (aka CTTE) decides who is right and who is wrong.
> 
> I have of course probably gotten all this wrong.  But that doesn't
> really matter.  The above describes how *I* subjectively perceive the
> situation.  That is not a subject for discussion.
> 
> My personal advice, since I'm out here providing opionions nobody asked
> for anyway, would be to start co-operating with the tasksel/installer
> developers instead of waiting for a CTTE decision.  That's not going to
> solve your issues anyway.

I think that your impression is not true here: "Priority: important" is
the usual way to get a package installed at install time. And we
announced to do this in the relevant bug, and this reached the table of
d-i, with an explicite request for a comment or veto (which did not happen).

After the following discussion we limited the number of entries and
changed the wording to be less confusing. There was no response or
critics to this from d-i until #846002 was opened (which was too late
for other changes, according to Cyril). We were always ready to
co-operate here, but without a getting a response this is a bit difficult.

In the meantime, tasksel was extended by another entry "LXQt", making
the "we don't want add items as they increase the confusion of tasksel"
argument questionable.

BTW, the usual way to cooperate is to open a bug report if something
seems to go the wrong way with a package. If d-i was so unhappy about
blends-tasks, why didn' they open a bug in summer saying that wording
change and limiting entries is not enough?

Finally: Yes, it seems that we have a conflict between two teams (blends
and d-i), and CTTE is asked to decide for the technically best solution.
I would really ask CTTE to evaluate the "confusion" argument (which is
the central one here) in order to make a decision whether the blends
should go into the installation menu or not. And who should maintain it
(the blends or the d-i team) -- these two were the questions raised in
the beginning from Holger.

Best regards

Ole