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

Bug#97755: PROPOSAL] eliminating task packages; new task system

On Sat, May 19, 2001 at 03:32:17PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> 	But what's the driving necessity to get this into policy in a
>  hurry? 

Because tasks are an important component of making the installer usable,
and they're currently completely broken (in that around half of the
existing tasks in sid simply shouldn't be tasks; and the remaining half
have documentation bugs, or don't include a quite optimal set of packages,
or similar).

Further, the current tasks make it significantly harder to cope with a
freeze, since the task package has to be manually fixed and reuploaded

>  We can't use policy to bludgeon people into removing their
>  packages; that has to come from agreements reached with authors of
>  the packages themselves, from the DPL, or a general resolution. 

Tasks need to be fixed by woody.

Thus, all the task-* packages in woody misleading at best, useless
at worst.

Thus they ought to get removed before release.

If they're not meant to be in woody, we should put this in policy
somewhere. Since policy's meant to be the place where we can discuss
technical changes to Debian that affect multiple packages.

I'm not sure why you think it's not appropriate for policy to be here:
this isn't a matter of packages sucking, it's a matter of having a
special, reserved name space that needs cleaning up.

> 	I have yet to see a reason for rushing into policy something
>  that is a proposed process, and not yet a documentation of tried,
>  stable, and current practice, Obviously, I am missing something.

That we're freezing shortly?

aj, not seeing much evidence of policy being "lightweight"

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)

Reply to: