Hi Ole, On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 09:51:09AM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote: > Andreas Tille <[email protected]> writes: > > Since a long time I'm wondering whether we should craft tasks files to > > express what we "really" want (like specifying mostly all dependencies > > as "Recommends" and leave the "Depends" for what we really mean as > > Depends. Since there are the frequently discusses drawbacks and > > compatibility issues with the current tasks files this is nothing that > > should be done quickly. > > Why not?
Your proposal is very good but not *quick*. ;-) > In my opinion it is quite straightforward, *and* we get a > documentation as a nice bonus: /read all imperatives below as "we should" ;-)/ > > * Create a document that describes the (new) format, and put it on > blends.d.o. The first line of the new format should be > "Format: http://blends.debian.org/tasks-format/1.0"; > > * Extend the parser in blends-dev and in webtools to recognise this line > and use it as switch between current and new format > > * Start to convert the own blends. This probably is as simple as a > couple of simple sed scripts. > > * Identify all build-depends of blends-dev, apply the sed scripts to get > a patch, and file bug reports for them > > This does not look like really difficult; probably the hardest part is > to review the current format. Its not difficult - it just needs to be done. I'm currently doing a very bad job in the latter. For instance using the code developed in GSoC *three* years ago[1] is also not really difficult. It just needs more testing which I always pushed to "some later point in time not that close to a release." Meanwhile we are developing two parallel toolsets (blends-dev and the webtools) in parallel since we do not get the enhanced tools into production. I'd hesitate to implement your suggestion in two code bases. > Aside from the changes > > Recommends: --> Suggests: I think Recommends should stay Recommends. > Depends: --> Recommends: +1 > new Depends: for real hard dependencies +1 > I would f.e. propose to do as well in this step: > > Pgk-Description: --> Description > Pkg-Url --> Url (or consequently use Homeppage:) Fine for me but we need to find a new field name for the Description of the metapackage itself (which was the reason why the Pkg- prefix was invented once prospective packages came up inside tasks files). > and would also include the changes needed to include a default selection > of packages as installation option for the Debian installer (currently > an optional "Install: false", but see bug #825004, and also see the > discussion in bug #758116). Fine for me. > These steps will make the change possible, bring inform the dependencies > nicely (with a patch) about the change, and finally allows to stick them > with the old format if there are good reasons for it (f.e. if the depend > on the old format elsewhere). Currently I do not see any reason why we should depend from the old format. > Unsolved in this scheme is the integration into the blends-dev document; > maybe it could just link to the document. If we create the format spec > in .rst or .md, we can easily also provide a web-readable version. > > What do you think? I think we should *first* bring blends-dev 0.7[2] and the UDD based webtools into production. This would enable us to have only a *single* point of changes for your proposal since we only need to fix the UDD importer. Anything else is normalised via UDD. And as I said in the beginning that's not really "quick". But yes, I like your suggestions a lot in general. Kind regards Andreas. [1] git://anonscm.debian.org/blends/blends-gsoc.git -- http://fam-tille.de
