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. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/tmp/newdemo>dpkg -p netscape Package: netscape Priority: optional Section: contrib/web Installed-Size: 22 Maintainer: Ryan Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
