Re: Packaging r-bioc-simpleaffy
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 01:59:51PM +0100, Karsten Hilbert wrote:
> Does this not mean that there ought to be a more convenient way for
> users to discover that they need to activate an additional repository
> (say, by somehow providing "pointers" from dummy meta "packages" within
> the main archive towards other repos, or else via some tasks-like
> mechanism or some such) and a user-friendly way of enabling such
> repos ?
I'm not against a separate repository. However, regarding advertising
packages via package dependencies properly (and in turn having them
mentioned accordingly on our tasks pages) we con only do this with
official Debian packages. That's IMHO a fair reason to inject the most
important (=the packages which are explicitely requested by our users)
into official Debian. If we advertise the option how to enable an
external repository (perhaps by providing examples for
/etc/apt/{sources.list.d,preferences.d}) the problem of high frequency
updates is not that urgent as it was mentioned by Steffen. I'm actually
not fully convinced that every scientist really wants to update his
system that frequently and is keen on following upstream updates all the
time.
> To provide this infrastructure is surely out of scope for Debian Med
> proper but seems to be a useful target for Blends as such but needs
> to be implemented in core Debian.
I'm in favour of a general Blends solution but this solution is
definitely limited to some constraints mentioned above.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: