FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 06-18-2012, 01:43 PM
Holger Levsen
 
Default new sections: education & metapackages

Hi,

/usr/share/doc/debian-policy/upgrading-checklist.txt.gz reads:

2.1. Version 3.9.3.0
--------------------

2.4
New archive sections _education_, _introspection_, and
_metapackages_ added.



And now I wonder under which section to move the debian-edu* packages to:
"education" for all but those build from "debian-edu", which belong under
meta-packages? Or are they all metapackages as their purpose is to setup an
education distro and since they dont contain educational software themselves?


cheers,
Holger


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 201206181543.48305.holger@layer-acht.org">http://lists.debian.org/201206181543.48305.holger@layer-acht.org
 
Old 06-19-2012, 12:38 PM
Andreas Tille
 
Default new sections: education & metapackages

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 12:55:42PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On 12-06-19 at 08:48am, Andreas Tille wrote:
> >
> > I'm personally in favour of education because I assume that's where
> > users might seek first. I have no idea whather I'm right with this
> > assumption.
> >
> > BTW, did I said that Debian Edu packages need some more changes than
> > just changing the section?
>
> I would say the opposite. Else "metapackages" would really mean
> "metapackages of miscelanous topics not covered elsewhere" which I find
> is not its purpose.
>
> If "metapackages" is nonsense specifically for educational stuff, then
> I'd be happy to hear examples of when it is sensible.
>
> If, on the other hand, "metapackages" is generally considered nonsense
> then I find it better to raise that discussion on debian-devel that by
> discretely working against it.

Fair point. My guess is that when the section was invented the Blends
metapackages were not in the focus of the people inventing this. I'm
basing my guess on the fact that they did not CCed debian-blends@l.d.o
when deciding about this. So my plan was not to discretely working
against the metapackages section but rather thinking that it is OK in
the sense that "other types of metapackages" were just in mind.

BTW, even if I'm not convinced about this specific section I would not
have severe problems to move all metapackages into this section (besides
changing debian-blends package quite short in time before freeze which
is probably not a good idea). The rationale why I do not have a very
strong opinion about this is, that I do not regard the section concept
as very helpfull in the end and so I could live with any consistent
structure. Actually one main reason for the Blends metapackages concept
is to overcome the restrictions of the section concept.

Kind regards

Andreas.

--
http://fam-tille.de


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120619123823.GE22243@an3as.eu">http://lists.debian.org/20120619123823.GE22243@an3as.eu
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 02:49 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org