On 30.10.2016 04:38, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 8:45 PM, Ole Streicher wrote:
>> The update script itself could even be distributed with the casacore
>> package itself. And for simplicity I would make
>> casacore-data-autoupdater a binary package within the casacore source
>> package (since this is the main dependency anyway).
>>
>> Comments on that? What would be the best dependency specification then?
>> casacore-data-autoupdater "suggests" casacore-data-XXX and/ore vice-versa?
>
> casacore-data-autoupdater Enhances: casacore-data-XXX
Isn't this redundant? I always thought that "Enhances" is just the
reverse of "Suggests" ("A enhances B <=> B suggests A").
The disadvantage of "Enhances" would be that it would need to know which
packages there are -- so every time a new data package is added, we
would need to update the updater package.
> casacore-data-XXX Recommends: casacore-data-autoupdater
This would raise privacy concerns, since recommended packages are
installed by default, and this one would connect to some .mil domain
servers. Why not "suggests"?
>>> Make sure that any security/privacy consequences of the non-apt update
>>> method are dealt with.
>>
>> If you have comments on my proposal, please comment.
>
> I don't know enough about the formats and the download processes to comment.
Formats, download processes and further processing are data dependent
(and therefore part of the casacore-data-XXX package). The autoupdater
would just execute the update scripts that need to be provided by the
individual packages.
Best regards
Ole
