El Tue, May 10, 2005 at 10:19:04PM +0200, Andreas Tille va escriure:
> On Tue, 10 May 2005, Sergio Talens-Oliag wrote:
>
> > Attached you will find the reStructured Text version of the blog entry
> > I've
> > written about the CDD DevCamp we had in Castelló, I know there are a lot
> > of
> > things missing, feel free to add what's missing on replies to this mail or
> > the Wiki ;)
> Thanks for the interesting report. It's a shame that sometimes real live
> is stronger than the wish to join.
>
> One question came immediately into my mind: You prepaerd a nice document
> at http://cdd-devcamp.debian.net/cddtool.html. What would you suppose
> to do with this:
>
> a) Just place a link from the common CDD document.
> b) You want me to include this in the CDD document (more or less
> replacing the old cdd package stuff written by me.
> c) You would care for the move to the CDD document yourself.
> d) ???
>
> I guess b) or c) should be delayed until cddtk moves to experimental
> at least.
The document is included on the future cddtk package (you probably have the
source if you did a checkout of my cddtk repository, it's on the doc/
subdir).
I believe that, once the tool is functional, probably the right thing to do
would be to keep the full version with the package and include a reduced
version in your document, as it is another tool for Custom Distributions
and your document does a good work sumarizing everything. Anyway, as you
say, we can wait until we have some more features ready, the current code
needs more work.
Ah, by the way, something I have not mentioned on my summary, I've been
thinking about changing apt-get to be able to install metapackages without
.deb files, the idea is to be able to do a call like:
apt-get satisfy-deps < control.file
Where control file has a list of Depends and Conflicts as a metapackage
would have.
The advantage is that doing things this way all CDD metapackages can be
distributed on one .deb file with the full description but we don't have to
include metapackages on the archive (they have caused problems in the past
when moving from unstable to testing) nor have empty packages installed on
the machines (of course, if we need something that is not included on the
single CDD description package we can build a normal .deb, it does not need
to be a metapackage).
What do you think? I'm asking because adding support to generate
metapackages should be very easy to do for the current cddtk package and if
someone is interested I can write it, but if nobody is going to use it I'll
probably start to work on the input for the hypotetical apt-get
'satisfy-deps' subcommand (and on apt, of course... ;)
Greetings,
Sergio.
--
Sergio Talens-Oliag <sto@debian.org> <http://people.debian.org/~sto/>
Key fingerprint = 29DF 544F 1BD9 548C 8F15 86EF 6770 052B B8C1 FA69
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature