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

Re: iPreparing developer gathering in Trondheim

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009, Holger Levsen wrote:

   - Is there anybody who volunteers to sit down next to me
     to check the list of packages.  MOst probably there are
     some "totten bits" inside the tasks files I would like to

Yeah, can do :)


   - Other packages might be not in unstable but in stable or
     testing - so I would like to hear your opinion whether we
     should parse all Packages.gz files (perhaps including
     experimental) and mark the entries accordingly.

How would you mark them? I think the package in unstable should be targeted at
testing at all times :)

A package in unstable *is* not necessariyl in testing.  The packages.gz
files of the different dists contain different packages.  Currently I only
parse unstable for the tasks pages.  I might parse all and put the information
about the existence of a certain dependency in the header information as
text or symbolic icon.

(So for example we should recommend apache1 there, as apache1 has been removed
from lenny.)

IMHO it makes no real sense to keep apache1  in any of our tasks files -
but perhaps I'm wrong.  Let's discuss this face to face.

   - Last but not least I would like to verify that debian-edu
     builds with the new blends-dev package which is targetted
     at experimental (sitting in new since more than two weeks
     and hopefully available when the gathering starts).

I think you can do that whether or not it's still in NEW :) Or do I miss

Well, it is possible sure, but uploading some metapackages of a Blend
which depends from a not yet available blends-dev sounds not very
clever and I think there is no real reason for ftpmaster to delay
editing the override file for a GPLed native Debian package which
just has some additional binary packages since  January 4th.

See you



Reply to: