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

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

On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 01:10:41AM -0700, Alexander Hvostov wrote:
> > On Sun, May 20, 2001 at 11:55:21AM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> > Upgrading from potato to woody and beyond works fine, nothing breaks,
> > you merely don't get your tasks to upgrade cleanly by simply using apt.
> Isn't that generally considered breakage?

All the packages in the task upgrade cleanly, the task- package may
get removed or it may not, you merely don't get any new packages that
might've been added to the task, unless you run tasksel. Of course,
if you removed any of the packages in the task since installing potato,
the same thing applies, in general.

> > > We are too close to freeze, to have this implemented right, no matter HOW
> > > simple the code is.
> > Please go back and reread the thread about this immediately after potato's
> > release: the problem with tasks as they existed for potato was that they
> > make it very hard to cope with RC bugs in packages in a task. If any one
> > package has an RC bug and has to be removed, the entire task gets broken.
> Why not simply remove one of the packages from the task if need be?
> (Forgive my idiocy; I haven't been watching this thread.)

Because that requires contacting the maintainer and nagging him to
reupload the task- package, possibly getting it recompiled on all the
various arches if it's not arch:all, getting rid of any new bugs that've
been introduced, etc. We tried it with potato, it was a pain. Again, see
the thread from back in August.


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: pgp5oZ82rnCPS.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: