Hallo wieder,
TL;DR = blendsel looks uploadable, even if that mail looks long and full
of nitpicks, that's all they are: minor things. A bunch of them being in
passing comments about tasksel itself. ;)
Holger Wansing <hwansing@mailbox.org> (2024-05-09):
> - I adapted tasksel, to become an installer for Debian pure blends. The
> new package is blendsel, see https://salsa.debian.org/holgerw/blendsel/
Now moved under installer-team's namespace.
Keeping the whole git history of tasksel without its tag is probably
fine, in case anyone needs to dig up why this thing is done that way,
but I'm not sure we should keep tasksel entries in debian/changelog; I
would probably only keep the blendsel entry, adding a reference to the
version of tasksel it was forked off from. Unless some others feel
strongly we should keep the whole tasksel history in debian/changelog?
I've fixed a few minor things for the rename. It looks to me the README
could probably be stripped down to mention blendsel's being a fork of
tasksel, and pointing at tasksel's README for more information. Less
duplication would be best (and I'm not sure how current the contents are
anyway). Ditto for tasks/README.
I think you know best how to adjust README.translators :)
I'm happy to upload it as-is (modulo debian/changelog), but I suspect
it'd make sense to adjust tasks/ before doing so? Happy either way.
> - I prepared a change in pkgsel, to call blendsel depending on the
> descision, if Debian pure blends are wanted or not.
> See https://salsa.debian.org/holgerw/pkgsel/
That I didn't check yet, my focus is on the current blocker (as far as
the DM vs. DD limitation is concerned).
> Anyway, I think I have it running so far, the blendsel dialog appears
> and shows the items to select; I'm attaching a screenshot showing the
> current state (please note, that the dialog shows three desktop environments
> as placeholder for now; the tasksel - and therefore blendsel as well -
> logic does not allow to have packages|tasks|blends listed that don't
> have the corresponding task-* packages in the archive).
Understood, but please let me know if it makes sense to have them in the
0.1 upload, or if you'd like to introduce them in 0.2 once 0.1 has been
accepted.
> The template should be rephrased, I would ask for review on
> debian-l10n-english when the time comes, but I guess there is still
> time for that...
You should talk to our beloved l10n coordinator!
And yeah, lintian/bookworm reports some things we don't normally do:
W: blendsel: using-first-person-in-templates blendsel/tasks [templates:16]
Seriously though, I'm not familiar with the semantics behind /first vs.
/tasks in tasksel. Do we want/need the same semantics in blendsel?
I think we should have lintian-overrides for the main package, just like
tasksel, at least for those (again, only running lintian/bookworm):
E: blendsel: no-debconf-config
W: blendsel: debconf-is-not-a-registry [usr/lib/blendsel/blendsel-debconf:3]
Finally, this should probably go away from both packages, I don't even
remember having managed that package:
Conflicts: base-config (<< 2.32)
(And indeed, that was 20 years ago.)
Bonus points: maybe clean up tasksel's debian/source/lintian-overrides?
Cheers,
--
Cyril Brulebois (kibi@debian.org) <https://debamax.com/>
D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature