* Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001206 21:30]:
> Task packages are packages whose names are prefixed with `task-'.
> Typically they are empty metapackages that merely depend on a collection
> of other packages.
Joey, nice work; I agree with the general gist of what you are aiming
for. When
Another thing that I think is important is that a task should actually
have the effect of installing a multitude of packages. If it doesn't,
you gain nothing over selecting packages by hand.
On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 09:28:23PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> The resulting list would look something like:
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 34672 debian-policy
Bug#34672: Installing xlib6g removed xlib6.
Bug reassigned from package `xlibs' to `debian-policy'.
> severity 34672 wishlist
Bug#34672: Installing xlib6g removed xlib6.
Severity set to `wishlist'.
> 8<
Joey Hess wrote:
>
> I suspect most people don't look at tasksel on a regular basis, but if
> it were possible to do a fresh woody install today, here is what you
> would see:
An excellent summarisation, Joey: there is a problem here.
Your suggestion is one way of looking at it, but is it the "r
Something like:
Internet
-Browsers
--lynx (default)
--Mozilla (which would select K or gnome or whatever the default is)
--...
-MUAs
--mailx (default)
--mutt
--...
-IRC Clients
--BX (default)
--IRCII
--...
-...
Programming Environment
-C (default)
-C++
-Fortran
-Python
-...
Servers
-Database
--Pos
On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 02:29:18PM -0800, Brian Frederick Kimball wrote:
> At 10:31 pm -0800 on December 04, 2000, Chris Waters wrote:
> > We *do* distribute the GPL with the binaries. It's in the source
> > tarball.
> Don't you see anything wrong with this statement?
What part of "we distribu
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ben Collins writes:
>>
>> Which doesn't include some very important tasks (task-web-server
>> and task-programming come to mind), but is a large improvment from
>> what we have now. And almost even fits on one screen.
>>
>
>Maybe we need a way to define subtasks
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 12:45:13AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> >
> > Which doesn't include some very important tasks (task-web-server
> > and task-programming come to mind), but is a large improvment from
> > what we have now. And almost even fits on one screen.
> >
>
> Maybe we need a way to
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 12:40:27AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Sounds good to me except that I think distinct, integrated desktop
> environments comprising many packages should each be able to have tasks.
> This means I think there should be a task-gnome equivalent to task-kde.
> (AFAIK, the X
On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Seth Arnold wrote:
> * Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001206 21:30]:
> > Task packages are packages whose names are prefixed with `task-'.
> > Typically they are empty metapackages that merely depend on a collection
> > of other packages.
>
> Joey, nice work; I agree wit
Seth Arnold wrote:
> Joey, nice work; I agree with the general gist of what you are aiming
> for. When I saw the list, I thought to myself, ``this doesn't buy much
> over selecting the packages by hand''.
Exactly.
> However, I think we can agree that many of these packages are *useful*,
> even if
Cheng H. Lee wrote:
> I agree that it is a bit long; however, I think the best way to resolve this
> would be to tell the user that there are more tasks listed below
people_who_have_never_run_tasksel_lately_if_at_all++;
> Some of these tasks should be folded into one, e.g. the multiple KDE or GN
Ben Collins wrote:
> Maybe we need a way to define subtasks so we get output like:
>
> [ ] LDAP : LDAP libraries, server and clients
> [ ] LDAP Devel : LDAP Development libraries
> [ ] LDAP Server : LDAP Server
> [ ] LDAP Tools : LDA
Branden Robinson wrote:
> The singular of "criteria" is "criterion".
I can't belive youy started out like that ...
> Sounds good to me except that I think distinct, integrated desktop
> environments comprising many packages should each be able to have tasks.
> This means I think there should be a
Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> Another thing that I think is important is that a task should actually
> have the effect of installing a multitude of packages. If it doesn't,
> you gain nothing over selecting packages by hand.
No, you gain the ability to say "I want to do foo", and get everything you
coul
Rando Christensen wrote:
> Instead of the task-* packages, there really should just be a preselected
> set of packages that people can use. A few of them, much like you would
> expect in other distributions.
AFAIK, that's what the base system and standard are.
> even if it itself USED the task-*
Andrew McMillan wrote:
> Your suggestion is one way of looking at it, but is it the "right" way?
> I seem to never install using tasks because they are too general - they
> make decisions the way I wouldn't - and they are (at the same time!) too
> specific - they frequently make decisions I can ma
>> Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I would furthermore suggest that localization tasks have some extra
> > structure placed upon their names: e.g., task-language-zh,
> > task-language-ja, etc.
>
> I have some other ideas about those, they can just be automatically
> selected based
At 12:46 am -0800 on December 07, 2000, Chris Waters wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 02:29:18PM -0800, Brian Frederick Kimball wrote:
> > At 10:31 pm -0800 on December 04, 2000, Chris Waters wrote:
>
> > > We *do* distribute the GPL with the binaries. It's in the source
> > > tarball.
>
> > Do
I'm going to chime in with my non-DD-ness. ATM the people who decide a
task package are not the ones who will ever use them. Tasks were by
definition not for developers, but for FNGs--DD's should know what they
want. Has anyone gone to -user and ASKED? I would submit that the first
step in ref
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
> Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> > Another thing that I think is important is that a task should actually
> > have the effect of installing a multitude of packages. If it doesn't,
> > you gain nothing over selecting packages by hand.
>
> No, you gain the ability to sa
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, John Galt wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
>
> > Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> > > Another thing that I think is important is that a task should actually
> > > have the effect of installing a multitude of packages. If it doesn't,
> > > you gain nothing over selecting pack
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 10:39:34AM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Well fine. This is why I want to come up with a set of guidelines and
> put them in policy, then we can apply them to individual cases.
Yes, and as I suggested the last time a similar discussion arose,
perhaps the first step might be to
At 03:29 pm -0700 on December 07, 2000, John Galt wrote:
> DANGER WILL ROBINSON! If a task-* package only installs one package, it
> sounds like the package description isn't being clear enough in the
> package to be installed.
A clear description is useless to a user that doesn't have the time
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.2.1.0
Severity: wishlist
We should have a c++-compiler virtual package to match the c-compiler
package. At present, at least in potato, only g++ Provides this
virtual package, but there may be others. And policy should encode
current practice.
Julian
--
=-
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 01:06:51PM -0800, Brian Frederick Kimball wrote:
> So, is it your position that every recipient of a GPLed .deb is given
> a copy of the GPL along with the .deb because the GPL is inside the
> .orig.tar.gz, regardless of whether the recipient of the .deb downloaded
> the .o
Chris Waters wrote:
> Yes, and as I suggested the last time a similar discussion arose,
> perhaps the first step might be to come up with an alternative naming
> scheme for empty packages which exist to make it easier for the user
> to install a set of packages, but which are NOT designed to appear
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 03:24:42PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Chris Waters wrote:
> > Yes, and as I suggested the last time a similar discussion arose,
> > perhaps the first step might be to come up with an alternative naming
> > scheme for empty packages which exist to make it easier for the user
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 12:45:13AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > Which doesn't include some very important tasks (task-web-server
> > and task-programming come to mind), but is a large improvment from
> > what we have now. And almost even fits on one screen.
> >
> Maybe we need a way to defin
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, John Galt wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
> >
> > > Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> > > > Another thing that I think is important is that a task should actually
> > > > have the effect of installing a multitude of packages.
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 10:37:16AM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Well, I think we should have a task-desktop that includes either one,
> or, if we really cannot make up our minds, _both_.
Or, if we get enough clue, _neither_ and a nice simple X setup that a
new user will soon get acustomed to.
Again, how about the target audience for a task-*: -user? If it's for Joe
Newbie, wouldn't it be good to get his input before carving something in
stone?
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Chris Waters wrote:
>
> A requirement for discussion on -policy before adding a task package
> might well go a long wa
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> First of all, what newbie is going to want to run a mailserver? Running a
> mailserver is usually a job for a medium-level sysadmin: certainly not
> a job to add for someone trying to get comfortable with a system. Where's
> the equivalent task-POP?
Um, n
Some time ago, I think there was a proposal to change the way task
packages are put together. Instead of task-* packages, relevant packages
would have something like:
Task: programming/c
If people want the kind of flexibility described in the thread (trees,
subtrees, etc). We should look into imp
* John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001207 18:14]:
> > distributions is the right one. Uncle Debian in his wisdom makes the
> > choice for him and takes care of the details.
> Fuck Uncle Debian and the horse he rode in on if that's the case.
Now John, I consider myself fairly competent; however, wit
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 08:16:49PM -0800, Seth Arnold wrote:
> Now John, I consider myself fairly competent; however, with three dhcp
> clients to choose from (an actual situation from many months ago) many
> folks won't know which one is *best*, as defined by ``works on the
> kernel as shipped''.
36 matches
Mail list logo
