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

Bug#202907: language tasks pull in reams of huge packages

Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> > Doing this would probably involve multiplying the number of language
> > tasks by the number of other tasks. Yeilding tasks like desktop-spanish,
> > etc. This would quickly become hard to maintain, I'd think.
> No, I meant that the tasksel definition could be expanded to have packages 
> defined in the tasks that are only installed if another task is selected. 
> Not duplicating tasks merging both but having one say to tasksel: "this 
> package should only be installed if task X has also been selected".

The task information comes from Task: lines in the Packages file. To

Package: foo-locale-es
Task: desktop, office

This would have to be extended to be able to indicate unions of tasks,
something like:

Package: foo-locale-es
Task: desktop & spanish, office & spanish

And then tasksel and aptitude and anything else that deals with this
also updated. They'd need to be modified either way really though. What
I was thinking about was making the Task field look something like this

Task: desktop-spanish, spanish-office

But I now realize this is almost identical anyway. Perhaps slightly
more simplstic and requiring no parser changes is all. I'd be glad to
see either implemented in tasksel and aptitude.

> > Actually I would rather we keep them in until we reach a resolution. I'd
> > rather tasksel err on the side of too big rather than on the side of too
> > little and confusing, as a general rule.
> > 
> I have removed it both because of over-bloating and because of
> mozilla-locale-es being broken at the moment. I have also re-added
> 'user-es' which was missing from the spanish task (but the CVS logs do not 
> indicate if this was done on purpose or it was a mistake)

I thought language-env had the same functionality as the old user-ll
packages? That's what its description says anyway.

see shy jo

Attachment: pgpA7MWqlF1WD.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: