tags 543256 pending
thanks
On Sunday 23 August 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
> Attached patches (untested, but straightforward) for three components:
> - base-installer, where the question will be asked and which will
> configure apt accordingly; this means the base system installation
> will now als
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 543256 pending
Bug #543256 [pkgsel] Make installing recommends optional
Added tag(s) pending.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs
Frans Pop:
> I've been wondering whether we don't need a new field to express such
> relationships. Something like "Soft-Depends:". That would be treated as
> depends, but can be unselected manually or uninstalled later if a user
> really, really wants to.
You can come up with subtle graduation
On Wednesday 26 August 2009, Don Wright wrote:
> If there are few enough packages needing an "Almost-Always-Depends:"
> field, could this be handled by a dummy package in the Depends: list?
> Something like "Depends: busybox-dummy | busybox" where busybox-dummy
> would not normally be available (an
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 21:19:06 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
>I've been wondering whether we don't need a new field to express such
>relationships. Something like "Soft-Depends:". That would be treated as
>depends, but can be unselected manually or uninstalled later if a user
>really, really wants to.
On Wednesday 26 August 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 August 2009, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> > Shouldn't they actually be Depends if they are really required for a
> > working system? I don't see why you want to special case some
> > packages.
>
> You'd have to take that up with the maint
On Wednesday 26 August 2009, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> Shouldn't they actually be Depends if they are really required for a
> working system? I don't see why you want to special case some packages.
You'd have to take that up with the maintainers of the packages. But for
the two cases I mentioned
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 12:25:43AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> - if we go this way it will mean that we'll have to continue to support
> the few "required Recommends" that have been identified in the past;
> one example is busybox for initramfs-tools, another that IMO is worth
> keeping is libg
Quoting Frans Pop (elen...@planet.nl):
> tags 543256 patch
> thanks
No objection to this set of patches from my side.
Maybe a suggestion to have the debconf template reviewed on
debian-l10n-english, just in case, but I have a wide confidence in
Frans writing style...
signature.asc
Description
Hello Frans,
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 7:25 PM, Frans Pop wrote:
> Attached patches (untested, but straightforward) for three components:
> - base-installer, where the question is asked (at medium priority) and APT
> is configured accordingly; the setting will persist for the installed
> system;
>
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 12:28:00AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 09:15:59AM +0200, Bj?rn Mork wrote:
> > > I think the use case is users who are being control freaks about the set
> > > of
> > > packages on their systems. If the set of packages being pulled in as
> > > re
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 09:15:59AM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> > I think the use case is users who are being control freaks about the set of
> > packages on their systems. If the set of packages being pulled in as
> > recommends is *wrong* (they don't fit the Policy definition of Recommends),
> > b
Steve Langasek writes:
> I think the use case is users who are being control freaks about the set of
> packages on their systems. If the set of packages being pulled in as
> recommends is *wrong* (they don't fit the Policy definition of Recommends),
> bugs should be filed against those packages
> I think that supporting this option is well within the normal scope of
> D-I, which is very much about flexibility where possible.
>
> Attached patches (untested, but straightforward) for three components:
Thanks, Frans.
I did put this mail in my TODO list to have a look at it. It's
probably
On Aug 23, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I think the use case is users who are being control freaks about the set of
> packages on their systems. If the set of packages being pulled in as
> recommends is *wrong* (they don't fit the Policy definition of Recommends),
> bugs should be filed against those
On Sunday 23 August 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
> I think that supporting this option is well within the normal scope of
> D-I, which is very much about flexibility where possible.
Ah, I wondered what had happened to this mail. I was in the middle of
adding attachments and suddenly it was gone. Must h
tag 543256 patch
thanks
On Sunday 23 August 2009, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Please make installation of recommended packages in d-i optional, at
> least by adding a question in expert mode. This is one of the features
> quite a lot admins turn off right after installations (found out by an
>
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tag 543256 patch
Bug #543256 [pkgsel] Make installing recommends optional
Ignoring request to alter tags of bug #543256 to the same tags previously set
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug track
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 543256 patch
Bug #543256 [pkgsel] Make installing recommends optional
Ignoring request to alter tags of bug #543256 to the same tags previously set
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug trac
tags 543256 patch
thanks
On Sunday 23 August 2009, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Please make installation of recommended packages in d-i optional, at
> least by adding a question in expert mode. This is one of the features
> quite a lot admins turn off right after installations (found out by an
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 543256 patch
Bug #543256 [pkgsel] Make installing recommends optional
Added tag(s) patch.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs data
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 08:53:20PM +0200, Marc Brockschmidt wrote:
> I think the consensus is that it's desirable to disable both at the same
> time. A use-case is setting up a server system, which by definition
> shouldn't contain more packages than strictly needed.
I think the use case is users
Christian Perrier writes:
> Hmmm, so Marc's request then needs some clarification about what is
> exactly wished.
>
> Is it wished that tasksel installing Recommends is made optional
> through a debconf question? This eventually leading to apt.conf being
> set to not install recommends.
>
> Or is
Quoting Frans Pop (elen...@planet.nl):
> On Sunday 23 August 2009, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > There is *already* such an option.
>
> Eh, no.
Hmm, OK, I overread the description of the parameter.
> > Actually, this is a preseedable parameter that's documented in
> > http://d-i.alioth.debian.org
On Sunday 23 August 2009, you wrote:
> > Please note that D-I does *not* install Recommends when it installs
> > tasks. However, of course, the installed system has the default
> > setting of Recommends being installed.
>
> Eh, yes it does. Joey changed that some time ago.
>
> tasksel (2.79) unstab
On Sunday 23 August 2009, Christian Perrier wrote:
> There is *already* such an option.
Eh, no.
> Actually, this is a preseedable parameter that's documented in
> http://d-i.alioth.debian.org/manual/en.i386/apbs04.html#preseed-pkgsel
That parameter has absolutely NO effect on tasksel. Read the d
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reassign 543256 pkgsel
Bug #543256 [debian-installer] Make installing recommends optional
Bug reassigned from package 'debian-installer' to 'pkgsel'.
Bug No longer marked as found in versions debian-installer/20090123lenny1.
> thanks
Stopping proc
reassign 543256 pkgsel
thanks
Quoting Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt (h...@debian.org):
> Package: debian-installer
> Version: 20090123lenny1
> Severity: wishlist
>
> Heya,
>
> Please make installation of recommended packages in d-i optional, at
> least by adding a question in expert mode. This is one o
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Please make installation of recommended packages in d-i optional, at
> least by adding a question in expert mode. This is one of the features
> quite a lot admins turn off right after installations (found out by an
> ad-hoc survey here at FrOSCon).
+1 from me.
Inde
Package: debian-installer
Version: 20090123lenny1
Severity: wishlist
Heya,
Please make installation of recommended packages in d-i optional, at
least by adding a question in expert mode. This is one of the features
quite a lot admins turn off right after installations (found out by an
ad-hoc surv
30 matches
Mail list logo
