Christian Hammers wrote:
> Recently I found two packages, debsig-verify and apt-listchanges only by
> coincidence because I read in a mailing list about them.
>
> Would it be good to have a package task-debian that had dependencies to such
> "meta" packages (including the latest version of apt,deb
On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 10:55:22PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Er, what would you think/do if you were a new user, and saw a list of tasks
> like "Web Server", "X Desktop", and so on, and nestled in aoung them was
> one titled, inexplicably. just "Debian"?
Call it a "working title". We can discuss th
Hi,
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 03:38:04AM +0200, Christian Hammers wrote:
> Recently I found two packages, debsig-verify and apt-listchanges only by
> coincidence because I read in a mailing list about them.
Generally, I like the idea of a task-debian metapackage, because I
also just discovered some
> "Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joey> If these tools become widly enough accepted that we think
Joey> everyone should have them available by default, we can make
Joey> them standard priority.
In the new universe (debbootstrap, tasksel, etc) where a user might
nev
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 08:34:04AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Joey> If these tools become widly enough accepted that we think
> Joey> everyone should have them available by default, we can make
> Joey> them standard priority.
>
> In the new universe (debbootstrap, tasksel, etc) where
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 08:34:04AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In the new universe (debbootstrap, tasksel, etc) where a user might
> never run dselect, what makes sure that in the default configuration,
> standard priority packages get install
Anthony Towns writes:
> ...what would people think of making a task-emacs and moving both tetex
> and emacs out from standard?
As an emacs user I think this is an excellent idea, but I worry that
such stretching of the definition of "task" may confuse users.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Danci
On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 10:55:22PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Christian Hammers wrote:
> > Would it be good to have a package task-debian that had dependencies to such
> > "meta" packages (including the latest version of apt,debconf and dpkg) to
> > ensure that users always get the latest Debian "
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 10:03:49AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > ...what would people think of making a task-emacs and moving both tetex
> > and emacs out from standard?
>
> As an emacs user I think this is an excellent idea, but I worry that
> such stretching of the defin
Matt Zimmerman writes:
> I think Emacs as a task makes good sense.
I think getting it out of standard makes good sense, but I'm not convinced
that it makes sense as a "task".
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 04:36:14PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman writes:
> > I think Emacs as a task makes good sense.
>
> I think getting it out of standard makes good sense, but I'm not convinced
> that it makes sense as a "task".
I think it makes as much sense as the existing tas
Matt Zimmerman writes:
> I think it makes as much sense as the existing task packages.
Many of which make no more sense than would task-emacs.
> Perhaps task-devel-emacs would be the logical analogue.
Why would someone who wants emacs so that he can read news and mail with
gnus and work on his W
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In many Linux distributions, Emacs is a high-level installation task, like
> "Games" or "Mail". This makes sense to the average user, who usually either
> wants Emacs or does not.
For a little amplification, while "Emacs as an editor" may not make
muc
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 07:31:48PM -0400, Alan Shutko wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > In many Linux distributions, Emacs is a high-level installation task, like
> > "Games" or "Mail". This makes sense to the average user, who usually either
> > wants Emacs or does not.
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> I think it makes as much sense as the existing task packages.
Existing brokenness is no excuse for new brokenness though. I have gone
into detail about how the current task system is fubar, and I think I've
filed bugs on most of the task packages you mention since they shou
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 11:10:47PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > I think it makes as much sense as the existing task packages.
> Existing brokenness is no excuse for new brokenness though. I have gone
> into detail about how the current task system is fubar, and I think I've
>
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 11:10:47PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > I think it makes as much sense as the existing task packages.
>
> Existing brokenness is no excuse for new brokenness though. I have gone
> into detail about how the current task system is fubar, and I think I'
While we're discussing what's wrong with task packages, I'd like to pick on
them a little more:
Task packages make things like task-gnome-desktop very easy to install, but
removing the packages which are installed can sometimes be really tough, if
you just wanted to try out gnome, for example.
P
On 05/01/2001 03:09:16 AM Sam Powers wrote:
>> While we're discussing what's wrong with task packages, I'd like to pick
on
>> them a little more:
>> Task packages make things like task-gnome-desktop very easy to install,
but
>> removing the packages which are installed can sometimes be really tou
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 01:47:34PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> Perhaps it would be useful to create a new archive section for Debian-specific
> tools. There seem to be more written all the time, and it would be nice to be
> able to easily browse a list of them. Things like apt-zip, grep-dctrl,
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> Perhaps it would be useful to create a new archive section for Debian-specific
> tools.
Christian Hammers writes:
> I like this idea. Do others have other opinions about this?
I like it also.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
Vince Mulhollon wrote:
> From my poor memory, the "generally agreed best idea" is to setup two
> packages, vaguely like this:
>
> Package name: task-abc
> Conflicts: task-abc-remove
> Depends: abc, bcd, cde, def
>
> Package name: task-abc-remove
> Conflicts: task-abc, abc, bcd, cde, def
Please,
On 05/01/2001 12:40:24 PM roland wrote:
>> Vince Mulhollon wrote:
>> > From my poor memory, the "generally agreed best idea" is to setup two
>> > packages, vaguely like this:
>> >
>> > Package name: task-abc
>> > Conflicts: task-abc-remove
>> > Depends: abc, bcd, cde, def
>> >
>> > Package name:
On 01-May-01, 12:50 (CDT), Vince Mulhollon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 05/01/2001 12:40:24 PM roland wrote:
> >> Vince Mulhollon wrote:
> >> > From my poor memory, the "generally agreed best idea" is to setup two
> >> > packages, vaguely like this:
> >> >
> >> > Package name: task-abc
> >> > C
Vince Mulhollon writes:
> Oh, I don't know if it [task-abc-remove] is an ugly hack.
The obvious thing to do when one wants to remove a package is to remove the
package. To an ordinary user "task-abc" is a package. He is not going to
figure out that the way to remove it is to install another pack
On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 12:50:51PM -0500, Vince Mulhollon wrote:
> Oh, I don't know if it's an ugly hack. Think about it, theres one program
> or system that handles conflicts and dependencies. Why not rely on it?
> Making multiple programs to do the same function (installing and removing
> pack
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> A cleaner implementation would be to create a simple program or script that
> would attempt to remove a given package and (recursively) all of its
> dependencies, skipping any that are depended upon by packages outside of the
> set of packages being ma
On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 12:30:23PM +1000, Sam Couter wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > A cleaner implementation would be to create a simple program or script that
> > would attempt to remove a given package and (recursively) all of its
> > dependencies, skipping any that
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> How does this allow you to remove a task package in an intuitive way? That
> is what this discussion was about.
I am not exactly sure if debfoster does exactly this (at least it does
similar), but this is what would call the perfect solution:
% apt-get install task-foo
t
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> debfoster does not do what I described, as you can see by its description.
I use it on my system for precisely that, only I don't limit it to just task
packages.
> How does this allow you to remove a task package in an intuitive way? That
> is what
Roland Bauerschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> How does this allow you to remove a task package in an intuitive
>> way? That is what this discussion was about.
> I am not exactly sure if debfoster does exactly this (at least it does
> similar), but this is what would call the perfect solution:
AM> Hallo!
AM> I was recently told in german usenet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
AM> that FreeBSD used this kind of approach, its package managment (iirc
AM> ports) remembered whether a package was requested directly or pulled in
AM> by dependencies.
I hear about that first time. I think it is not true. Fr
On Tue, 1 May 2001, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 01-May-01, 12:50 (CDT), Vince Mulhollon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 05/01/2001 12:40:24 PM roland wrote:
> > >> Vince Mulhollon wrote:
> > >> > From my poor memory, the "generally agreed best idea" is to setup two
> > >> > packages, vaguely li
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How about an ordinary meta-package named "emacs"?
That might be OK. Bear in mind that there used to be a real package
named emacs, though, so you should be wary of breaking upgrades from
very old systems.
--
Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP=E80E0D0
On Wednesday 02 May 2001 13:51, Simon Law wrote:
> apt-get install { -remove }
>
> which happens to be REALLY ugly. Better to have apt-get support
> task-removals. For example:
>
> apt-get remove --remove-task [--purge] { }
>
> Simon
I think Roland's suggestion[1] of a new Installed
On 2.V.2001 at 15:09 Sam Powers wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 May 2001 13:51, Simon Law wrote:
> > apt-get install { -remove }
> >
> > which happens to be REALLY ugly. Better to have apt-get support
> > task-removals. For example:
> >
> > apt-get remove --remove-task [--purge] { }
> >
> > Si
Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> Isn't it possible to integrate debfoster in apt?
I think apt is even supposed to have some kind of hooks for storing the
necessary info, they are just not used.
--
see shy jo
37 matches
Mail list logo
