Re: Ubuntu and CDDs
|--==> "ST" == Sergio Talens-Oliag <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>>Before I went to Florence I asked here whether somebody is using the cdd-dev
>>package. I try to give a summary of the answer which is more or less
>>Later I give some technical comments to these answers.
>>1) I use a slightly hacked version.
>>2) We also tried debtags and we planned to build the metapackages from the
>>3) I didn't use cdd-dev but thers ways to do the same.
>>4) Joey Hess recently modified the debian-edu meta package build system
>>and tasksel to support custom tasks
>>You obviousely see that there are at least four drawbacks of the current
>>cdd-dev package (or at least there are people who refuse to use it because
>>they see drawbacks for their special work). But I never have seen a
>>complain on this list or a bug report or whatever. So we are in danger to
>>drift away even in such simple matters like building tiny little packages.
ST> Well, I don't have drawbacks about the current cdd-dev package (I still have
ST> to use it to have any), what I don't like is the use of metapackages per-se,
ST> the inclusion of empty packages on the pool just for selecting packages do
ST> not really seem the right thing to do and the problems debian-edu
ST> metapackages have caused blocking migrations from unstable to testing don't
ST> seem reasonable either.
I do agree here.
ST> After looking at debtags I found that a better way of declaring our meta
ST> packages is to tag the included packages with a category equivalent to the
ST> cdd and meta package, i.e., for a package included in an hypotetical
ST> lliurex-server meta package we could use this in a /etc/debtags/tagpatch.d
ST> samba: +lliurex::server
ST> I have no code to move that to a metapackage, but it's really easy to do it;
ST> just getting the output of a command like:
ST> $ debtags grep "lliurex::server"
ST> will give you the list of packages using this tag from which is easy to
ST> generate a dependency list for a metapackage.
ST> I'll try to work on it next week (this week we are installing pilots and I'm
ST> almost sure I will not have time for it) and add an option to generate
ST> metapackages in this way using existing cdd-dev code in the subversion
Is more or less the same idea I had in mind. And IMO debtags *is*
ready for this.
However we have to think it a little bit carefully as some issue
already arise when I talk with Enrico about this in Florence. I'll try
to make up my mind and drop a proposal.