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

Re: debian-edu build process, once more



On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 01:08:24PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 12:22:53PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> I would prefer autogeneration.  Everything else is a hack.  Browsing changes
> in SVN might answer the question who injected this and can explain the
> reasons.  According to changelog it was Vagrant for the education-thin-client
> package (which is the only questionable hardcoded package.

...snip... 

> Package: education-thin-client
>  ==> If there is no strong reason to use Depends here than this should
>      definitely turned to a task tasks/thin-client.
>      Explanation: I took over the strategy to turn Depends in the tasks
>      files to Recommends in the resulting debian/control file.  This turned
>      out to be practical and there was no real need to change the code
>      invented by Petter years ago.

i set it up as hard depends to remove a list of hard-coded packages to
install from the debian-edu specific ltsp-build-client plugins, which would
fail if the appropriate packages weren't available. so having them as depends
in the education-thin-client package ensures that those packages end up on the
CD, simplifies the ltsp-build-client plugins greatly, and allows for more
proper tracking of the dependencies we actually rely on.

if the packages actually work without a given hard depedency, we could add an
architecture-specific dependency or move it to a recommends, if appropriate.
it has to properly handle if the packages aren't actually installed before
moving it to recommends or removing the dependency on certain architectures.

>      In the long run I would like to see an option for forcing real
>      Depends also in metapackages.  So when I realise my plan to base
>      building of metapackages based on UDD information I will probably
>      do a s/Depends/Recommends/ in all tasks files to express what we
>      really mean.  This will leave a Depends as a "real" Depends ending
>      up in the control file.  IMHO this is more clear.

if the autogeneration is desireable, then this approach will work better, yes.
but it will also have to account for architecture-specific dependencies, like
usplash and whatnot.

live well,
  vagrant


Reply to: