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

Re: utnubu-desktop for the masses

Mike Bird wrote:
> However, metapackage equivalents of Debian tasks would have much
> more reasonable numbers of dependencies - I think "desktop" is
> the most complex with 18.

In the head of this thread, I posted a message listing several problems
with metapackages. All of these problems may not apply to all
metapackages at all times, but in sum they all apply in general and are
a good reason not to use metapackages for tasks and to limit the breadth
of metapackages in Debian.

You have so far concentrated on how a single facet (testing propigation)
of a single problem (britney scaling issues) of a single task (desktop)
might not be a problem. While beating the details of an edge case to
death is an interesting debating technique (or perhaps just a good way
to get everyone else to go away) it's not likely to lead to anything
generally useful. 

So far this entire thread has managed to be a useless distraction from
the question at hand, which is how to make Debian's desktop task the
best collection of packages it can be. I hope that if Gustavo hasn't
been scared off by the predictably useless evolution of this thread so
far, he will still find a way to work with me to help improve things in
this area.

> tasksel is a separate parallel unnecessary superfluous redundant
> and largely opaque dependency lattice with some dependencies not
> even determined until runtime (Test: ) and a whole set of action scripts
> (postrm etc) independent of regular package scripts.

Your rhetoric is boring me.

"dependency lattice" has no meaning.

The "Test:" fields have nothing to do with dependencies and could not be
implemented using normal packages.

Tasksel's sole "action script" is desktop.preinst, which could not be
implemented using any regular package maintenance script or dependency
mechanism, since X requires the hardware detection programs be installed
before it is preconfigured. In making X operate this way, the X
maintainers have *required* that the installation system have a special
case for X; castigating tasksel because I chose to implement support for
this special case in a generalized fashion in desktop.preinst is absurd.

Please take your offtopic bullshit to /dev/null.

see shy jo

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: