On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 12:55:42PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On 12-06-19 at 08:48am, Andreas Tille wrote:
> >
> > I'm personally in favour of education because I assume that's where
> > users might seek first. I have no idea whather I'm right with this
> > assumption.
> >
> > BTW, did I
Hi,
/usr/share/doc/debian-policy/upgrading-checklist.txt.gz reads:
2.1. Version 3.9.3.0
2.4
New archive sections _education_, _introspection_, and
_metapackages_ added.
And now I wonder under which section to move the debian-edu* packages to:
"ed
into the education (or metapackage)
> section now, if sections are bound to go away anyway?
The fact that new sections are created now seems to be a sign that
sections will not go away soonish, right (do you have any reference that
they go at all?)
> (Also we still havent release Debian Edu S
Hi,
On Dienstag, 6. Dezember 2011, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 04, 2011 at 01:46:58PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > education, which is for education related tools that don't fit better
> > metapackages, which is for metapackages so that apt can do special
> Where would you like to see th
On Sun, Dec 04, 2011 at 01:46:58PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> education, which is for education related tools that don't fit better
>into any other section
>
> metapackages, which is for metapackages so that apt can do special
> handling on them.
Where would you like
On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 11:27:34AM +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> There's also the problem that if a meta package removes a dependency
> in a later version, that package will still stay of the system with
> the current implementation.
Is this really a problem? It could be perfectly OK to sim
Le dimanche 04 décembre 2011 à 23:47 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow a
écrit :
> The reasoning being that both metapackages and transitional packages
> should have their dependencies marked as non-automatic so they don't get
> removed when the top package is removed.
>
> I think mixing the two types
On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 08:21:50AM +0100, Christian PERRIER wrote:
> Quoting Goswin von Brederlow (goswin-...@web.de):
> > Joerg Jaspert writes:
> >
> > > metapackages, which is for metapackages so that apt can do special
> > > handling on them.
> >
> > On IRC Joerg mentioned that
Quoting Goswin von Brederlow (goswin-...@web.de):
> Joerg Jaspert writes:
>
> > metapackages, which is for metapackages so that apt can do special
> > handling on them.
>
> On IRC Joerg mentioned that transitional packages could/should also go
> to the metapackages section.
oldlib
On Sun, Dec 04, 2011 at 11:47:30PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Joerg Jaspert writes:
>
> > metapackages, which is for metapackages so that apt can do special
> > handling on them.
>
> On IRC Joerg mentioned that transitional packages could/should also go
> to the metapacka
Joerg Jaspert writes:
> metapackages, which is for metapackages so that apt can do special
> handling on them.
Should this section also get transitional packages, or should those stay
in oldlibs? I'm guessing the latter, but they're technically also
metapackages.
--
Russ Allbery
Joerg Jaspert writes:
> metapackages, which is for metapackages so that apt can do special
> handling on them.
On IRC Joerg mentioned that transitional packages could/should also go
to the metapackages section.
The reasoning being that both metapackages and transitional packages
s
Hi
following the 3 bugs I close with this mail I just created new sections
in our 3 archives. That is,
introspection, which is for "GObject introspection data" (or whatever
other subsystem is doing something similar to it in the
future)
education, wh
13 matches
Mail list logo
