David Coe wrote: > There are/were a minor bugs against the task-python-* packages in > unstable, all due to broken dependencies; those are easy to fix, but > are one of the things that drove us away from the old task-* packages, > as I understand it.
Yep. It's not the end of the world in the new system if a task lists a package that no longer exists. It may slightly break the task, but it is handled gracefully. Tasks can also refer to packages that are only in non-us and they will continue to work even if the system doesn't have a source for non-us. > I had also planned to create a parallel set of task-python2-* > packages, as a result of brief discussion on debian-python, and > can still do that if task-python[2]-* packages are still desired. > > task-python-dev, in particular, is probably not very useful; we had > discussed the pros and cons of having that, on the debian-python list > when task-* packages were first created, and decided to (iirc) go > ahead and create it to see if anyone uses it. My guess is we > could drop that one and no one would complain. > > Joey, what *should* happen with these task-[python-]* packages? > Should I bring them up to date for sid? for woody? What should > I read (e.g. where are the following guidelines)? See tasks/README in tasksel's source. We do have a few other -dev tasks, and I think it can be sorta useful to get a task that lets you get started quickly on using a particular langage. (In particular, the c-dev task should also let you build most any program you run accross.) At the same time, I do think they're amoung the shakier of the tasks we have now (expecially fortran-dev!). I'm not sure what these pthon2-* tasks are intended to do or why you think more than one task is needed in this area. -- see shy jo
