Re: cleaning up our task packages
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 03:24:42PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Chris Waters wrote:
> > Yes, and as I suggested the last time a similar discussion arose,
> > perhaps the first step might be to come up with an alternative naming
> > scheme for empty packages which exist to make it easier for the user
> > to install a set of packages, but which are NOT designed to appear as
> > a "task" in tasksel.
> Why is this a necessary first step before we can make policy about task
> packages?
Um...um....because I'm suffering from a bit of a sleep shortage today? :)
> Anyway, there is absolutly nothing wrong with making a meta package
> just have a sensible name. That is it a meta package is irrelevant, it
> still causes things to be installed; if you care to see if it is a
> metapackage, you can use dpkg -L and figure that out pretty easily.
> A good example of a meta package done right is the "netscape" package.
Ah, yes, thanks, an excellent example. Yes, you're right, there really
is no need for a naming convention in cases like this.
Ok, here's a slightly better proposal: why not simply handle the task-
package namespace the same way we do virtual packages and menu
entries. That way the actual text to go into policy almost writes
itself, and the only challenging part of the job would be deciding on
the initial tasks to seed the official list.
> "meta-package" is an interesting idea for a tag.
Yes it certainly is. I would support a proposal to formalize it.
> Yes, I see plenty of evidence of no thought in the current set of task
> package. :-/
A requirement for discussion on -policy before adding a task package
might well go a long way towards solving that little problem.
--
Chris Waters xtifr@dsp.net | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or xtifr@debian.org | above, but it is too long to fit into
| this .signature file.
Reply to: