Re: better install disks
On Mon, 14 Feb 2000, Joe Block wrote:
> How is this functionally different from task-* packages that depend on
> various packages and virtual packages? It seems a lot easier to
> maintain multiple servers if I create a task-jpbserver that has
> dependencies - the next time I 'apt-get update;apt-get upgrade' on one
> of the servers apt will see that jpbserver's dependencies have changed
> and grab the necessary debs.
>
> Perhaps I'm just not seeing things clearly, but it seems that by not
> having the collections depend on the various packages that are in them
> we just create the need to write new code to deal with a special
> collection type rather than use the existing dependency resolving code.
Dependancies are too rigid, suppose I wanted to replace one of the packages
you 'depend' on with a better one. (eg replace emacs with vi :-) or replace
it with "rob-ed" ) There's an active dependancy so you can't remove the
rubbish.
Also dependancies wouldn't do removal of packages, if a package wasn't
depended on by the new version it'd just get left behind. The same happens
if you remove a task-* package, ie nothing.
Then there's switching the 'style' of the installation, if you switch from
a set of task-* packages for 'kids' to a set for 'junior-hacker' you'll
get junk left behind. With collections you'll probably still have the
packages left behind but they'll be there as 'free' packages not in any
collection and so should be easier to spot and remove if you choose.
You see that's the idea, an installed system would consist of:
1) Choose the style
2) Pick the collections, choose options.
3) Add or remove one or two packages you love/hate.
So you're describing the package list for the system in maybe 30 items
rather that 300-400 individual packages and that description _is_
preserved through upgrades and adjustments.
This is also seperating the 'choices' of installation "do you want it
to be Xwindows or command line" from the essentials "bash must have
libncurses installed or it won't run"
--
Rob. (Robert de Bath <http://poboxes.com/rdebath>)
<rdebath @ poboxes.com> <http://www.cix.co.uk/~mayday>
Reply to: