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

Re: Easy install of a CDD in whole or in part using standard package admin tools

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, Ben Armstrong wrote:

> Debian-Med box might well be dedicated to the task from the very outset,
> whereas a Debian Jr. box may be created from a generic installation at a
> later date.
While you are right I also see Debian-Med meta packages as a tool to
set up a generic box for different medical purpose.

> The reason I think integration into the existing package
> admin tools is important is to accomodate for these different CDD
> needs.  Some people will prefer to just stick in a CDD installation CD
> and configure a box for a particular purpose.  Others will want to
> customize an existing box for a particular purpose after doing a generic
> install.  We should aim to accomodate both groups of users.

> Tasks themselves are not regular Debian packages, but the modules
> contained within the task currently are.  I had hoped we would
> eventually work around the inflexibility of using meta packages for the
> individual parts of a CDD by a multi-level task system (a task that has
BTW, at LinuxTag we discussed that the tasksel system should be multilevel
anyway to allow a proper preselection.  This multilevel selection is
more or less state of the art in a modern install process.

> aren't).  But since the tasksel maintainer seems to be moving away from
> that direction, I'm proposing we move on from this issue and see what we
> can do in the standard package admin tools.

> As mentioned several times
> before, debtags are promising.  If all parts of a task are tagged, and
> the package admin tools allow selection of the parts to install based on
> generic or more specific tags, that does away with the inflexibility of
> Depends.  But thus far, I haven't seen any process documented for "how
> to use debtags to install a CDD in whole or in part".  Perhaps now is
> the time to do that.
Time to fire up debtags-eidt ... ;-)

Kind regards


Reply to: