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

Re: Tasks policy

On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 09:55:48AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >>>>> "Anthony" == Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
>     Anthony> Remember: the point of tasks is to make the initial
>     Anthony> install simpler, so that people can get started on Debian
>     Anthony> without having to wade through dselect.
> Yes, that was the original point of tasks.  However, tasks are also
> used today by people who want to get a set of software installed after
> the initial install.  [...]

> Yet I understand we have finite time.  Would it be reasonable to get
> tasksel install task-name added as a command line invocation for
> people to use in scripts

I'm not sure what scripts have to do with anything, but adding a command
line option is entirely trivial. You check the code out from CVS, or do
an apt-get source, you write the code, and you send it to Randolph. It
doesn't need discussion here.

> and to have the policy text say that
> frontends that handle recommends should handle tasks?  

Not really. Frontends should do whatever their authors deem appropriate
and have time to implement. If you want to send in patches, or write
your own frontend, more power to you. It's not policy's place to say
anything about what features you should and shouldn't implement 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: pgpQhwCZTBU94.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: