Re: summary from the irc meeting 2007-08-23
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, Jürgen Leibner wrote:
Summary
Thanks for the summary.
Attendees:
Andreas = Andreas Tille
At least for the first 15min until Deutsche Telekom cut my DSL connection
off. :-(
1. Who can write the summary?
20 minutes after the begin of the meeting I joined it and so the
summary writer was found ;-)
Because I was in the middle of writing that I would volunteer for this
summary I would volunteer to write the summary for the next meeting (I
will take part in).
This will give us working images while we spend time to reduce the
amount of packages in our repository.
Is there a list of packages that are not yet included and are there reasons
given for each package that is not yet included?
h01ger want us to not build from our own repository, in the belief that
it will make us more focused on fixing stuff in lenny.
I tend to agree here.
sepski said that this is a good plan for integration into debian, but
it makes it harder for non DD's to test their stuff since they need a
sponsored upload first.
How many non DDs are uploading not yet included packages? I'm just curious
to understand how urgent this problem is and whether it might be hard to
gather some reliable sponsors. In Debian-Med we recently got some new
DDs accepted who were very active and now the sponsoring of the remaining
non-DDs works like a charm.
6. Extremadura 2007
There is a wikipage url where people can sign up/mark the dates that
fits the best: http://wiki.debian.org/DebianEdu/Extremadura2007
winnie collects info from everyone about when they _can't_ join, and
then try to find such holes.
From my real live experience I learned that this approach will not work.
I foud out picking two or three fixed dates and ask people whether they
will be able to come works much better. At the moment we have one fixed
date (3.10. - 7.10.) where two people agreed to. I'd suggest pick up
two other dates (just a random guess: what about the first weekends of
November and december) and ask people to fill in when they could join.
Find the date with the highest number of attendees and you are done.
(I'd volunteer to add such a table to the wiki if you agree to this strategy.)
andreas is working on converting debian-edu to use the common CDD
tools, trying to converge the different CDDs to use a common set of
tools.
pere believes this is a good idea. Andreas' strategy so far is to take
the debian-edu tools, remove the debian-edu specific hardcoded stuff
and make it more configurable. Next convert our packages to use the new
tools.
I'm currently at the stage where you have to do two things to build
Debian-Edu packages:
1. Build-Depends: cdd-dev (>= 0.4)
(This version is not yet released)
2. Replace your debian/rules file by
#!/usr/bin/make -f
include /usr/share/cdd-dev/rules
I've got this working in principle but I have to add some features to
the new cdd-dev to enable building Debian-Med packages again.
The only change I would propose to the packages is to add a versioned
Depends from education-tasks. Currently your control file has a
Depends: education-tasks
for every meta package. I would like to replace this by
Depends: education-tasks (= ${binary:Version})
The advantage of this is that you always have a consistent set of meta
packages builded from the same source installed on one system. I guess
this is the normal case but we just had exceptions in Debian-Med which
forced us to use this strategy. If you agree (or if I get no disagreement
statement I'll check in the relevant code into SVN at Sunday evening.
The positive effect is that we can get help from other cdds to
maintain and improve the tools.
Right.
The negative effect is that it become
slightly harder to modify the tools (have to send then through the
cdd-tools maintainer).
Wrong.
I'd be very happy to open cdd-tools SVN for everybody who is interested
and as long as I'm online I'd be quick in sponsoring for non-DDs (upload
for DDs of a than group maintained package should be no problem anyway).
Luckily, we can all become part of the cdd
project and do the work directly there, so it is not a big problem.
Exactly. (Or rather this was my initial plan from the beginning. ;-))
pere believes it is ok to work on trunk, but only if we are careful.
Sure. That's why I would like to discuss any change that influences
the result (see above).
7.3 Finally Build-Depend from (to be released) cdd-dev and Depend from
cdd-common
- This point was skipped -
Not before r1 is out.
7.4. Naming scheme (*-tasks, *-common, *-config)
- This point was skipped -
*-tasks : will remain
*-common: I dropped the special meaning of *-common from the
cdd-tools so you are free to use education-common as
usual. (Hey, this was a big concession to you guys
because I had to change a lot of code in cdd-dev and
will have to restructure med-* packages - don't say
I would not adapt to your needs. ;-))
*-config: *-config now takes over the role what *-common was
formerly in cdd-dev. This means in the Debian-Edu
case: You are _free_ to build education-config as
a replacement for debian-edu-config _if_ you _want_.
The package is created only if a directory config
exists in the source. If you leave this out, nothing
changes.
8. Next meeting?
The next meeting is planned on #debian-edu (irc.debian.org),
2007-08-31 18:00 UTC (20:00 CET).
It will (hopefully) complete in 1 hour.
(danielsan would like to see other people here, was a bit low the last
few meetings)
I think I can make it for this meeting (try to insert myself as summary
writer so we can skip the obviousely hardest pint and see whether my DSL
connection will be stable).
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: