Re: tasks: counterproposal (and implimentation)
Anthony Towns wrote:
> > enhancements to deal with cases where all the packages in a task, or at
> > least some of the important ones, are missing. Noticing all are missing
> > and not displaying the task in the list is easy enough. Noticing that
> > the core packages of a task (postgresl, apache) are missing and deciding
> > not to show the task is also doable, it really just requires one list of
> > the key packages that mist be present, and another list of ancillary packages
> > that can go missing w/o badly breaking the task.
> For comparison, using task- packages, if I remove the core packages from
> a task from woody, I can just also remove the task- from woody.
In a sense, doing it programmatically is cleaner and less work in the
> > > This ought to be able to be done
> > > without modifying newtasksel, since, according to the freeze plans,
> > > newtasksel will be frozen (as part of the base system) while the tasks
> > > and their packages (as part of the "standard" system) are still be fixed
> > > or removed.
> > Split out the task data and move it to a standard priority package then.
> Which means the task data won't be installed in the base system, and thus
> won't be available when base-config is run. Doesn't it?
There is really little correlation between priority and what goes on the
base system. Of course, that's largely due to divergence and wrong
priorities on packages, But there are other packages, like pcmcia-cs,
that are legitimatly not in standard, but are still installed as part of
the base system. This could just be another, similar case.
see shy jo