Re: cleaning up our task packages
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 as
> a "task" in tasksel.
Why is this a necessary first step before we can make policy about task
packages?
Anyway, there is absolutly nothing wrong with making a meta package
just have a sensible name. That is it a meta package is irrelevant, it
still causes things to be installed; if you care to see if it is a
metapackage, you can use dpkg -L and figure that out pretty easily.
A good example of a meta package done right is the "netscape" package.
joey@gumdrop:~/tmp/newdemo>dpkg -p netscape
Package: netscape
Priority: optional
Section: contrib/web
Installed-Size: 22
Maintainer: Ryan Murray <rmurray@debian.org>
Architecture: i386
Source: netscape4.base
Version: 1:4.76-1
Depends: communicator | navigator
Conflicts: netscape-base-406, netscape-base-407, netscape-base-408, netscape-base-45, netscape-base-451, netscape-base-46, netscape-base-461, netscape-base-47, netscape-base-472, netscape-base-473, netscape-base-475
Filename: dists/woody/contrib/binary-i386/web/netscape_4.76-1.deb
Size: 10154
MD5sum: 6dbbb6efc933cb62cbb544925e75c2b7
Description: Meta package that depends on other packages
This package depends on the real netscape packages, so as to
make things easier for people to install.
meta-package: yes
"meta-package" is an interesting idea for a tag.
(Bleah, bug filed on that worthless description though.)
> The thing is that these empty group packages are useful, and I think
> people are creating them because they are useful without thinking
> about tasksel at all. (At least, I hope so in some cases,
> e.g. roxen.)
Yes, I see plenty of evidence of no thought in the current set of task
package. :-/
--
see shy jo
Reply to: