Hi Margarita, On 26.12.2016 14:43, Margarita Manterola wrote: > While it's great that there is a possibly better solution in the works for the > tasksel screen, there's still the issue at hand that blends-tasks has used the > severity of the package as a way of circumventing collaboration with tasksel > maintainers.
I already several times pointed that out: We did not "circumvent" the collaboration with the tasksel maintainers. The relevant bug #758116 was assigned to tasksel for quite a long time, and the proposed solution to create a package blends-tasks was announced exactly there -- so the proposal was on the desk of the tasksel maintainers, explicitly asking if they would veto. The first response from a tasksel maintainer came only five weeks later, without a veto, but with a discussion that finally lead to the current wording and selection. This is not what I would usually call "circumvent collaboration". For any other critics, the usual way to collaborate is to open a bug report. This did not happen then before of this bug (#846002). #846002 was again based on the first version of blends-tasks (see Holgers initial message), and he failed to rebase it within an reasonable time (and the original critics were already handled by the update to blends-tasks 0.6.94 as described above). And, again, IMO the d-i team several times expressed their heavy overload. It seems natural that working on the blends selection in tasksel or the correct wording should be done by the people who actually deal with the blends, avoiding to put additional load on them. Could you support your accusation a bit? I have the feeling that you are ignoring my arguments (since I have put them here already). Best regards Ole