Hi Holger,
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 02:24:55PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Mittwoch, 16. Oktober 2013, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > Debian Edu tasks files are in a *very* weak state.
>
> why do you call it weak? Because we are less likely to notice new failures?
There will be no failures actually because the Blends framework is safe
in terms of ignoring unknown packages. This advantage has in turn the
drawback that you are not noticing renamed packages or packages that are
providing alternatives for some package that was removed from Debian.
And your tasks files just do contain such packages that are affected
which I'd call weak and the "very" was used because it are several
packages.
> > You should fix all
> > the packages mentioned in your tasks file because in the worst case you
> > will lack those packages who are renamed or have better alternatives in
> > your resulting metapackages.
>
> I seem to recall there was a practice of just adding "random prospective"
> package(names), hoping they would be packaged some day. (I was never happy
> with this approach.)
But in debian-edu it is the other way around. In most cases there is no
hope that the old packages will come back or reappear in old versions
etc.
> If this approach is not used anymore (or my memory is wrong in the first
> place), I'm all for clean up!
The approach remains valid - but this is *not* the problem in your tasks
files at all. You did not updated your tasks files with not *yet*
available packages - you are just keeping cruft.
Hope this explains better
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-edu-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131016125302.ge32...@an3as.eu
