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

Re: debian-edu build process, once more



Hi,

On Freitag, 30. Oktober 2009, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> we definitely should *not* make a tasksel task out of it.

I was only thinking of creating the debian/control fields for that package by 
the means of the tasks dir and blends-dev magic. I'm not aware that this 
automatically creates a tasksel task too.

> i definitely recall it not working as a recommends, but can't recall
> exactly what the issue was at the moment. 

this could have changed in the meantime...

> if recommends aren't met, we need 
> to make sure that nothing assumes those packages are installed, such as
> debian-edu-config hooks and such.

in those cases we should use depends. (and fix blends to support it.)

> if people want to switch it back to recommends, go ahead. i don't have the
> time to test it.  you've been warned.  :)

ok, I'm not in favor of doing this, as I'm in favor of releasing rather sooner 
then later :-)

> the whole method of abusing recommends to avoid installability problems
> leaves me with an unsettled feeling. 

why? as said: stuff which needs depends, should declare depends. (this is what 
we do in the tasks/* files, just that blends doenst make depends out of it. 
but it shall.)

> apparently, it was even a release goal 
> for lenny to not have unsatisfyable recommends in main
> http://release.debian.org/lenny/goals.txt:

cool. still, unsatisfiable depends cause it to block testing migration, while 
unsatisfiable recommends dont have such an effect. but of course this goal is 
still worthwhile and we should use arch-specific recommends where applicable.


regards,
	Holger

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Reply to: