Re: tasks

["Martin Bialasinski" <martin@internet-treff.uni-koeln.de>]

* "Joey" == Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org> wrote:

Joey> When are all those additional task packages going to be made?
Joey> The ones Martin specced out that do not yet exist are:

[...]

These are ripped from the Debian 2.1 tasks, with additional ones
defined by me.

The difficult part is to define what the tasks should "do" (as Branden 
noted). If this can not be defined, this task is probably not needed.

Joey> I also think that the task short descriptions should not bother
Joey> to say they are metapackages -- this is going to be clear from
Joey> context one way or other.  Unless people disagree, I want to
Joey> file bugs on the tasks above that have "metapackage" in their
Joey> short description. This will have a side effect of making all
Joey> existing short descriptions actually fit in tasksel w/o being
Joey> truncated.

I think this is reasonable.
 
Joey> Tasksel lists only packages that start with task-, that's how it
Joey> limits the number of packages it lists to something manageable.

Joey> I guess the real question is: Is imap important enough to be
Joey> listed as a task? It may make more sense to make a
Joey> task-mail-server or something, which would include several mail
Joey> tools and daemons, including imap.

I have 4520 packages in available. Too much to be manageable. Someone
knowing the Debian tools and packages he wants will make his way
anyway, but this task system should be an alternative.

"I want this box to be a news server, a SMB fileserver and provide
imap and smtp services"    

And this request should be fulfiled by the task system, with the
choice of packages the maintainer decided do best.

Therefore I do think an imapd task package would be a good idea. But
your task-mail-server package is a good idea as well.

Joey> I'm not really sure what granularity the task packages are
Joey> supposed to use.  And it doesn't seem very consistent so far,
Joey> either. :-(

I have to agree. But it is our first try on this, we can only improve
:-) And it is already an improvement to the prior system. 

Ciao,
        Martin