Re: My talk @ Manresa and other things ...
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004, Sergio Talens-Oliag wrote:
> They are written in english (in fact using a lot of material from
> Andreas and Enrico), I'll be happy if the people on the list takes a
> look and tells me what they think.
Really nice. It helps me removing some stuff from my talk (which has grown
to much and sometimes it is hard to remove something ...) and contains something
I should stress more in the future.
> I'm mainly interested in discussing some of the open issues presented
> on the slides and others not present there, just to put everithing in
> one place (cdd-doc?, wiki.debian.net?) for reference and discussion.
Well, cdd-doc does contain a whole TODO / Open issues section and I see
no problem to add or modify the information there. (I'll give you 4 weeks
because I think I will not touch it before my holidays which start at the
end of this week and will last three weeks.)
> - Installing a CDD as part of the standard Debian install, or on an
> already-installed Debian system; CDDs can't go in tasksel, as they
> bloat the base disk set.
Much potential for a flame war here. ;-)
I just invite you to continue the thread I started about the closed bug in
tasksel which I started at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-custom/2004/06/msg00096.html
> proposals 1: modify tasksel (this isn't going to happen -- the last
> remaining CDD, Debian Jr., has been removed from tasksel by the
> maintainer)
Unfortunately yes (see above). There was a consensus between some random
people at the LinuxTag Debian-booth that tasksel sucks anyway. It should
be more tree like and should enable unfolding / folding sections as it
is the state of the art for this kind of installer software. Moreover I
think, if CDDs will not be accepted in tasksel, we should provide a
"cddsel" which has exactle the features of presenting all available
CDDs and enables opening one CDD and installing all or only single tasks
of one CDD. This "cddsel" should be called immediately after or even
before tasksel. If not CDDs will just be lost for normal Debian installs.
> proposal 2: Devise a debtags-based solution. This one depends on
> better debtags integration into standard package admin tools.
I really hope for better Debtags integration for Debian in general and
much more powerful tools for CDD in special because I see a great
potential in this technique.
> At Manresa I gave my talk just after Ian Murdock and he talked about
> Progeny's Componentized Linux approach, they use *components* instead
> of *metapackages* and their installation system (Anaconda) uses those
> components to install the system. Maybe having *components* for each
> CDD is also an option, but it will not work with d-i.
I have to admit that I would not really care about names (metapackages
vis components) - it just has to work. Moreover I admit that I did not
had time to have a look into this components stuff and I doubt I will in
the near future. But I talked with Ian after his talk in Karlsruhe and
he enforced me to go the CDD-way - so at least he likes what we do. ;-)
> I've put on the list of open issues one of the things we talked about
> in the Valencia Congress; the use of a standard tool for modifying
> configuration files.
Fine.
> I think it would be a good idea to have some standard tool to do that,
> but before moving the discussion to debian-devel (as this can be
> useful not only for CDDs but for all package maintainers) I would like
> to hear more opinions / ideas about that.
Can't say much about that because I did (not yet) worked much with this
preconfiguration for CDD purpose.
> Any comments about my talk are welcomed (including spelling errors ... ;)
I'll leave them to the more educated people in English language.
Thanks for your fine work
Andreas.
Reply to: