Re: Feedback about the cdd-dev package and more...
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004, Sergio Talens-Oliag wrote:
Well, I have the feeling that the problem is, as Enrico said, that everybody
is quite busy and a lot of projects were already in development when you
started to work on the cdd package and now maybe they don't feel like
I'm happy that those peoples are not so busy that they reinvented Debian
and don't feel like changing. But I'm not sure about whether many people
outside (=not on this list) there do so and spend their time in inventing
wheels because they are to busy to take the existing ones. To help those
people we started CDD and I guess people who are at this point reading
this mail have experience enouth in informatics to agree that spending
time once to settle down to a standard saves an order of magnitude of
time more in the future.
Hmm., now it is too soon, but when I get to this part we can talk about it.
I'm also interested on user menus and roles, but we are solving it for a
different environment (GNOME Menus Only) and we are solving it now at
installation time (putting files in /etc/skel and adding system menus),
anyway I would love to have a general solution, I'll think about it when a
lot of other things are finished ... ;)
For the moment it is enough to convince Gnome people that user menus
are a feature we want (except if the want us to switch to KDE which
works perfectly with usre menus).
OK, I'll try to, maybe we should send a call for cooperation to all the
people interested on CDD, I thought this list was the one, but maybe I have
to post to debian-devel and all the current custom distributions lists...
I'll do it tonight.
I kept Petter in one of my mails in CC to remind him taht something
interesting is going on...
Well, I don't have strong feelings about it, it's simply I have the feeling
that it is cleaner to put all the things related to a task together, and
once the layout is clear and documented a migration should be a matter of
... which is why I personally offered to migrate not only one but two
CDDs in case the switch makes sense and is accepted by others.
The beauty of the directory layout is probably not enough to convince busy
people - but it depends from your talent in discussing (or perhaps offering
them some free Spanish wine at the nect conference in Spain - in the later
case I want to be convinced as well. ;-) )
Well, maybe on the next meeting that could be arranged... ;)
BTW, any idea where and when the next Open Source World Conference would
Well, again I don't have strong feelings, but I believe that a structure
Makes working on a task cleaner and more extensible: the idea is that each
file inside a directory can be handled by different people, something that
is very interesting (and I plan to use) for preseeds and postconfig
scripts, mainly because they can be logically related to a single package
or a small set of packages.
As I said I agree with you in case it is accepted by others. I see no
reason to change if others stay silent (= ignore your suggestion).
Hmmm, I do not really see the advantage to use these files *in source*.
While I would havo no trouble with this I do not see the advantage.
First I have to say that with source package I mean the distribution of a
.deb that contains the task directories as I've described before.
To make it clear to me: I understand you this way that you want to create
a binary Debian package which contains all necessary files to create the
binary Debian packages of a CDD (inclusively this package itself which
causes probably a recursion problem ;-) ). Is this right? If yes, I
see no reason in building Debian packages in a different way than from
its source package. But may be I missunderstood you.
Distributing the CDD in this way allows anyone to generate a CDD repository
or installation CD using sarge, sid or whatever mix he wants to, without
introducing dependencies into the main Debian archive.
Of course if you want to include metapackages into the archive you can do
it, but that's only for convenience and is probably easier to generate the
metapackages localy and put them on people.d.o or alioth.d.o for the
different debian releases.
You can also do this from the meta packages source with the current system
by just pointing /etc/cdd/sources.list to the right sources.list file.
Did I missed something?
The only problem which I did not solved by myself is, that you can have
different resulting binary packages for the same source when changing
/etc/cdd/sources.list on the building machine. Because this sucks we
have to find a clever solution here.