Re: packages tasksel expects to find in woody, that arn't there
On Monday 25 February 2002 07:15 pm, Joey Hess wrote:
> Tasksel expects to find a bunch of packages in woody that arn't there.
> This is not often a big deal; the missing packages will be silently
> skipped. That can sorta suck if it is one of the core packages in the
> task though.
>
> Of particular note is the missing KDE metapackage, which means
> that new woody installs do not get KDE at all, although tasksel claims
> to let you pick it as part of the desktop task. Someone needs to begin
> maintaining that package, fix its dependancy problems, and get it into
> woody posthaste.
>
> No cxterm-gb!
> No cxterm-big5!
>
> update-excuses hates it. If anyone cares about cxterm, someone
> needs to figure out why it has all these unsatisfiable Depends.
>
> No kde!
>
> Again, very, very bad.
>
> No asiya24-vfont!
>
> Has some RC bugs. Seems to be in the process of being removed,
> according to update-excuses, although they are all fixed. Hmm.
>
> No junior-programming!
>
> I wonder there this went. Ben?
>
> No python-base!
> No dpkg-python!
> No python-distutils!
> No python-mxdatetime!
> No python-mxstack!
> No python-mxtexttools!
> No python-mxtools!
> No python-pam!
> No pythondoc!
> No sulfur!
>
> Someone who cares about python needs to look at its task and send us a
> corrected version. Preferably a much smaller corrected version, the
> current one is ridiculously bloated.
>
> No mueller7-dict!
>
> Has rc bugs, and updates-excuses implies it is in the process of
> being removed.
>
> No dialdcost!
>
> Was only in stable, is there a replacement in unstable?
i'm assuming that the ben whose attention you're attempting to get is that of
ben armstrong, which ain't me. on top of that, and in view of your posited
attempt to exert pressure on others, i'd like to draw your attention to the
fact that, when i had a serious issue with debconf stability a couple of
months back, you left me hanging. i resolved my problems, at that time, by
reinstalling a minimal potato, so that i could jump from there straight to
sid. i may be way wrong, and you can correct me if i am, but the only reason
i made that hop to sid was because you didn't respond to repeated requests
from me for a resolution to those debconf problems in potato, that i did my
best, as a novice, to address.
i am not, at all, given, as previous posts can prove, to exerting undue
pressure on any of the maintainers. neither is my object in this post to do
such, but your post, here, right now, seems decidedly unfair, given my
experience of your negligence, at that time, to adequately acknowledge fairly
posted queries about the stability of a considerably more important aspect of
debian functionality than the kde metapackage. if this response seems, to
you, to be inappropriate or unfair, feel free to correct me.
ben
ben
Reply to: