Bug#97755: [PROPOSAL] eliminating task packages; new task system
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
Introduction:
After a lot of discussion, AJ and I have settled on a compromise that is
acceptable to both of us about what to do to fix Debian's broken[1] task
system.
Essentially, we propose throwing out all existing task packages, no
longer using packages at all to deliver task information, formalizing
the process by which tasks are modified/added, and moving the information
about what packages belong in each task out to the packages themselves
(or to the Packages file).
The new system:
Rather than having task packages any more, individual packages that
belong to a task can have a Task: control file field that lists the
names of tasks they are a part of. This field can also be added to the
Packages file by way of an override, even if a package does not contain
it. Doing things this way has a lot of benefits that AJ has recently
enumerated.
That is half of the data tasksel needs to display a task. The other half
is a description of the task (and ancillay information like the name of
the task, a section it is in, etc). That information will be delivered to
tasksel in the form of a single file (format much like a debian/control
file) which will ship with tasksel or in another package. We have
decided not to use individual debian packages for reasons which I have
recently discussed[2].
Tasksel will be modified[3] to put these two sources of information
together and display tasks for selection much as it does now.
Woody:
To roll this out in time for woody's freeze, we will make heavy use of
the overrides to add Task: fields to the Packages files. The possibility
is left open that later the overrides might be done away with, or
packages will at least be able to include matching Task: fields, but we're
not going to do that for woody, since there isn't time.
To make this happen in time for woody, I want to form a task force of 3
to 5 people to, in the next 3 weeks, look at the existing task packages,
and decide on a list of tasks that should come with woody, and come up with
the lists of packages that go in the tasks. This is intended as a
bootstrapping effort, not a group that will have long term control over
the tasks. If you're interested in being on the task force, please mail me.
Proposal:
Here's the actual proposal. I am of course looking for seconds.
--- policy.sgml.orig Tue May 15 21:57:25 2001
+++ policy.sgml Tue May 15 22:14:28 2001
@@ -1024,6 +1024,38 @@
</p>
</sect1>
+ <sect1>
+ <heading>Tasks</heading>
+
+ <p>
+ The Debian install process allows the user to choose from
+ a number of common tasks which a Debian system can be used to
+ perform. Selecting a task with <prgn>tasksel</prgn> causes
+ a set of packages that are useful in performing that task to be
+ installed.
+ </p>
+
+ <p>
+ This set of packages is all available packages which have the
+ name of the selected task in the <tt>Task<tt> field of their
+ control file. The format of this field is a list of tasks,
+ separated by commas.
+ </p>
+
+ <p>
+ You should not tag any packages as belonging to a task before
+ this has been discussed on the `debian-devel' mailing list and
+ a consensus about doing that has been reached.
+ </p>
+
+ <p>
+ For third parties (and historical reasons), tasksel also
+ supports constructing tasks based on `task packages'. These are
+ packages whose names begin with `task-'. Task packages should
+ not be included in the Debian archive.
+ </p>
+ </sect1>
+
<sect1>
<heading>Maintainer scripts</heading>
@@ -1282,8 +1309,8 @@
<p>
Having a separate package allows one to install
the build-essential packages on a machine, as
- well as allowing other packages such as task
- packages to require installation of the
+ well as allowing other packages and tasks
+ to require installation of the
build-essential packages using the depends
relation.
</p>
(AJ, note that I have changed it a bit from what you saw.)
--
see shy jo
[1] For the many reasons why we consider it broken and why it cannot be
fixed in its current form, see discussions on debian-boot, debian-policy,
and debian-devel in the past half year or so. Or just run tasksel
sometime.
[2] Perhaps most lucidly at the end of <20010512133943.B7471@kitenet.net>
[3] I'm starting work on that soon.
Reply to: