On Tue, 8 Jul 2008, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
I noticed one thing while testing the new feature. I suspect we do not want to generate metapackages (as in entries in debian/control) for such enhancing packages. At least, I suspect we should have a way to avoid generating metapackages for tasks.
Well, I can't really see why an existing metapackage should harm but there is no need to ignore a wish for such a feature to suppress generating a metaackage (for whatever reasons).
--- /usr/share/cdd-dev/cdd-gen-control 2008-02-07 11:52:38.000000000 +0100 +++ cdd-gen-control 2008-07-08 16:53:00.000000000 +0200 @@ -169,6 +169,7 @@ sub gen_control { my $task; for $task (sort keys %taskinfo) { + next if (defined $taskinfo{$task}{Enhances}); print "Package: $task\n"; my $header; Not sure if this is the best way to handle it. Perhaps better to have a separate task header for this, like the leaf header used to control tasksel tasks. What is your view on this?
My view is that this linking of two different things (Enhances and suppressing the generation of a metapackage) by a single flag is not the best idea. I just learned that you should have one flag for one feature and thus I would prefer the implementation via another flag (may be leaf - just noticed that Leaf is not documented yet and we should definitely document Enhances as well). I know that your patch would work for the moment - but it is a quick and dirty hack. Kind regards Andreas. PS: I would really prefer if you would just work on svn://svn.debian.org/cdd/cdd/trunk/cdd/ with your enhancements. I personally do symlink from /usr/share/cdd-dev/* to my working directory to not need to build the package over and over ... -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]