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

Re: Tasks policy

On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 11:06:41AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 04:42:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > (Cc'ed to debian-boot)
> > tasksel in sid supports a "Task:" header for packages so we can be a
> > little more flexible than having every task- depend on everythig in it.
> Can I make a suggestion?  This sounds really good in general, but the
> one headache you've identified is the necessity to set up the Task
> fields in lots of packages and the consequent maintenance of this data.

I'm thinking it'll probably be best if a list of which packages are
in which tasks is maintained as part of boot-floppies CVS, and that
dak/dinstall updates the Task: fields based on that.

> Would it not be much easier for the task packages _themselves_ to
> contain Task: fields, instead of the individual packages, which would
> function like weak Recommends: fields: 

Not really. The code's already written to do things the other way around,
and the main point of "Task:" fields being in the package is so that
packages can be removed from the archive without breaking any tasks they
might be a part of.

> In this way, the dependency information remains in the
> domain of the task-* package maintainers, but has the desired
> function.

It'd be possible to do this, too (either informally by saying "only
task package maintainers should mess with this part of CVS" or by making
dak/dinstall look at the actual contents of the latest task- packages).
I suspect using CVS'll be easier and at least as good though.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you
  do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.''
                      -- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)

Attachment: pgph93kkzqT38.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: