On Wednesday 05 September 2007 08:22:59 you wrote: > On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Steffen Moeller wrote: > >> clusters on DebTags technology. You certainly want to know _exactly_ > >> what is installed on your cluster and do not really want it to be > >> changed by any change in the DebTags database. I think for this purpose > >> the meta package approach is the better way to go. > > > > The debtags would be used as constraints: "I would allow the requested > > installation of program X if there is a facet f such that f(X) is stated > > in debtags and f is among a set of facets that characterise my cluster > > because I say so. > > > > You would _not_ use debtags to install every X with f(X) in debtags for > > some f in F. > > Hmmm, so I could undermine your cluster installation via removing or > changing some DebTags of packages you want to install? I can not > see the rationale behind it. As a DD and knowing me to use your packages you can do many things :o) But, yes, an authority that assigns tags to software packages (the authority could be in Debian or in some grid community) will have some influence on what software is eligible on some cluster's specification. Exactly. Think of these installations as transient dynamic events that are associated with jobs seeking a cluster on the grid for its execution. For some clusters in the grid a software will be allowed to be installed on demand (because of the debtags assignments to the software and constraints imposed by the cluster) and on others not. > > Hm. But you saw from Benjamin's reply that he found it not natural to > > have 3D structures a separate facet, and I do not think we should spend > > much time on such easy decisions: of course we need that, but how could > > Benjamin know? > > Well, I don't know either why we really _need_ this. It might be of > some use perhaps but I fail to see an urgent need. Fine, but the now pending discussion on if it should be in or not we could have more easily within the Debian-Med than with Debian at large. > > I am in favour of some decentral managing. The technology may be there to > > have a shared maintainance but it would be less efficient and probably > > consequently also less fun. > > I'm personally very hesitant about any decentral thing because there is > always a danger that people who might care for this in the beginning will > find some new field of interest and we become dependant from some > decentral thing that requires extra maintainance. I see. > > We could have something like: categories with more than 5 entries get > > into the main debtags distribution ... or something alike. > > Well, probably we could convince DebTags people by just naming the > 5+x entries that a catagorie makes sense without having an extra > repository. Fine. But we need a way for us to assign the packages then to tags that are not yet part of debtags. Or am I mixing things up here? Many greetings Steffen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.