Re: Switching the debian-edu build rule to use cdd-dev? (Was: Bug#399754: marked as done (FTBFS: Can not require network during build))
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
I had a look at cdd-dev a few months ago, when I started on a cdd
package for Debian GIS, with the intention of learing how cdd-dev
worked and see how hard it would be to use it in debian-edu as well.
The reason is that I would like to switch debian-edu to cdd-dev as
well, thought it is hard to find motivation to replace something that
do work. :)
:) Sure. I guessed that.
There are several changes done to the debian-edu scripts since the
fork:
- the tasksel tasks are rewritten to use one file instead of several.
Is there any reason that could convince me to follow this change
in cdd-dev?
- the way recommented missing packages are handled are slightly
rewritten (used to end up as suggests, now can either stay as
recommends or end up as suggests)
I guess this is related to Debian policy. Are non-free packages
allowed as recommends?
Any idea whether we should also include Enhances?
I am sure there are other changes as well. Personally, I believe it
is a good idea to merge our recent changes into cdd-dev and switch
debian-edu to use it. It will increase the amount of people with
knowledge about the tools used to build the debian-edu packages, as
well as improve the situation for other custom debian distributions as
all will gain the improvement done by one.
I'm willing to make the move as easy as possible. On the other
hand I'm missing kind of a "list of requirements" from Debian-Edu.
But the cardinal rule of "do not touch it if it is not broken" do
apply too, so I am a bit reluctant to switch. :)
Sure. I guess you will only find a reason if cdd-dev supplies so
interesting features that it is attractive enough to leave "the old
path". I'm thinking about supporting DebTags but that's currently
vaporware. I just want to do some research how good are the
chances to convince other projects to switch ...
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: