[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Task-harden

On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 05:19:47PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Another approach to consider is one like vrms: allow the user to investigate
> what you think is wrong with their system and act on it as the choose;
> rather than the all or nothing thing Conflicts: offers.
> Also, task- packages really shouldn't Conflict: with other packages. It's
> not really how the infrastructure for them works. There's no documented
> policy for task- packages yet, and, IMAO, it's really starting to show. :(

Well you have a point here. Does the tasksel system work with conflicts?
Personally I think a policy should be a good thing.

And maybe we should have a more general approach of the task packages.
I think it might be better to just have ordinary packages and list
the "task" ones in a list. But that is just a tought.

> > I was thinking that it would be cool to have a (debconf?) frontend that
> > asks questions about _what_ you want to secure, and installs the packages
> > you need. 
> Personally, I wouldn't really recommend using debconf, at least initially.
> It's pretty limiting in many ways, and the specific purposes it's been
> designed for mighn't match what you're trying to do.

Well basicly I find it in some sence strange to emulate the conflicts
(or ! suggests) with debconf. So I totally agree. :)


// Ola

 --------------------- Ola Lundqvist ---------------------------
/  opal@debian.org                     Björnkärrsgatan 5 A.11   \
|  opal@lysator.liu.se                 584 36 LINKÖPING         |
|  +46 (0)13-17 69 83                  +46 (0)70-332 1551       |
|  http://www.opal.dhs.org             UIN/icq: 4912500         |
\  gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36  4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 /

Reply to: