Re: [SCM] science branch, master, updated. 62a9741420de5201ef8c55e8db751b3709150359

[Paul Wise]

On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 11:29 PM, Ole Streicher wrote:

> The problem seems to be that this is somehow not always propagated to
> the archive: for example the "" package has "optional" priority
> since its second release in d/control (2 years ago), but the package in
> the archive still shows "extra". I have no idea why this is not
> propagated.

The archive supports overrides and they need syncing:

https://packages.qa.debian.org/e/erfa.html

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

Re: [SCM] science branch, master, updated. 62a9741420de5201ef8c55e8db751b3709150359

[Ole Streicher]

Andreas Tille  writes:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 04:16:30PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
>> My own experience while learning Debian is that "extra" is very often
>> chosen by mistake
>
> I share this feeling 100%.  I preached frequently on mailing lists and
> changed very frequently in team Vcs es from extra to optional.

The problem seems to be that this is somehow not always propagated to
the archive: for example the "erfa" package has "optional" priority
since its second release in d/control (2 years ago), but the package in
the archive still shows "extra". I have no idea why this is not
propagated.

*If* it would be propagated, in principle that would be a simple mass
bug filing for all packages that have "extra", but no "conflicts",
right? ("wishlist" ofcourse).

I however feel a bit unhappy with using "extra" packages to be installed
with the initial tasks selection, due to potential conflicts. If we just
ignore this problem, we could also ignore the policy here and let
"optional" debian-science tasks "recommend" packages with "extra".

Best

Ole

Re: [SCM] science branch, master, updated. 62a9741420de5201ef8c55e8db751b3709150359

[Paul Wise]

On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 10:50 PM, Ole Streicher wrote:

> What was the alternative to deal with conflicting packages?

I guess allow optional packages to conflict.

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

Re: [SCM] science branch, master, updated. 62a9741420de5201ef8c55e8db751b3709150359

[Andreas Tille]

On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 04:16:30PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
> My own experience while learning Debian is that "extra" is very often
> chosen by mistake

I share this feeling 100%.  I preached frequently on mailing lists and
changed very frequently in team Vcs es from extra to optional.

Andreas. 

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

Re: [SCM] science branch, master, updated. 62a9741420de5201ef8c55e8db751b3709150359

[Ole Streicher]

Paul Wise  writes:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 10:16 PM, Ole Streicher wrote:
>> Andreas Tille writes:
>>> I think the change of priority from extra to optional is wrong.  Per
>>> policy packages with priority optional can not Depend / Recommend
>>> packages with priority extra.  Since we have no way to control the
>>> priority of all dependencies the metapackages should remain at priority
>>> extra.  Alternatively the every single priority of metapackages needs
>>> to be set explicitly.
>>
>> OK, that is a good point; I didn' think on it. I'll just revert the
>> Priority to extra for the moment.
>
> IIRC the plan for optional/extra was to delete extra entirely. No idea
> what happened to that idea.

What was the alternative to deal with conflicting packages?

Best

Ole

Re: [SCM] science branch, master, updated. 62a9741420de5201ef8c55e8db751b3709150359

[Paul Wise]

On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 10:16 PM, Ole Streicher wrote:
> Andreas Tille writes:
>> I think the change of priority from extra to optional is wrong.  Per
>> policy packages with priority optional can not Depend / Recommend
>> packages with priority extra.  Since we have no way to control the
>> priority of all dependencies the metapackages should remain at priority
>> extra.  Alternatively the every single priority of metapackages needs
>> to be set explicitly.
>
> OK, that is a good point; I didn' think on it. I'll just revert the
> Priority to extra for the moment.

IIRC the plan for optional/extra was to delete extra entirely. No idea
what happened to that idea.

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

Re: [SCM] science branch, master, updated. 62a9741420de5201ef8c55e8db751b3709150359

[Ole Streicher]

Hi Andreas,

Andreas Tille  writes:
> I think the change of priority from extra to optional is wrong.  Per
> policy packages with priority optional can not Depend / Recommend
> packages with priority extra.  Since we have no way to control the
> priority of all dependencies the metapackages should remain at priority
> extra.  Alternatively the every single priority of metapackages needs
> to be set explicitly.

OK, that is a good point; I didn' think on it. I'll just revert the
Priority to extra for the moment.

However, this may point to a potential problem with the Blends included
in tasksel: The policy guarantees that all packages with policy
"optional" are conflict-free, but this is not true for "extra" (in fact,
conflicts are probably the main reason to use extra). So, if we are
going to install via tasksel, there may be conflicts in the package
selection, which would be a really bad experience for someone who
installs Debian the first time. While formally the "tasksel" task
dependencies are no dependencies for the policy, in fact they are.

I would guess that with a "good feeling", we can only include tasks with
all Recommends as "optional" into the list for the default installation.
Another way would be to automatically lower the priority "extra"
packages in the tasks.

My own experience while learning Debian is that "extra" is very often
chosen by mistake (I think there are some templates of the debian subdir
that use "extra"). Could someone with good apt experiences post a
command line to find out the "Priority: extra" packages in the blends?
Getting this fixed where "optional" could be used would probably help to
see where we have real problems.

Best regards

Ole

Re: [SCM] science branch, master, updated. 62a9741420de5201ef8c55e8db751b3709150359

[Andreas Tille]

Hi Ole,

I think the change of priority from extra to optional is wrong.  Per
policy packages with priority optional can not Depend / Recommend
packages with priority extra.  Since we have no way to control the
priority of all dependencies the metapackages should remain at priority
extra.  Alternatively the every single priority of metapackages needs
to be set explicitly.

Kind regards

   Andreas.

On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:11:18PM +, Ole Streicher wrote:
> The following commit has been merged in the master branch:
> commit 2fd4b0806af41eeaafe8b85f9dbe7db0e9e8bb5c
> Author: Ole Streicher 
> Date:   Tue Apr 5 15:10:50 2016 +0200
> 
> Chage Priority and Standards-Version in d/control.stub as well
> 
> diff --git a/debian/control.stub b/debian/control.stub
> index 0758f20..e46e6ad 100644
> --- a/debian/control.stub
> +++ b/debian/control.stub
> @@ -1,12 +1,12 @@
>  Source: debian-science
>  Section: science
> -Priority: extra
> +Priority: optional
>  Maintainer: Debian Science Team 
> 
>  Uploaders: Frederic Daniel Luc Lehobey ,
> Andreas Tille ,
> Sylvestre Ledru 
>  Build-Depends-Indep: blends-dev (>= 0.6.15)
> -Standards-Version: 3.9.6
> +Standards-Version: 3.9.7
>  Vcs-Browser: https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/blends/projects/science.git
>  Vcs-Git: https://anonscm.debian.org/git/blends/projects/science.git
>  Homepage: http://wiki.debian.org/DebianScience/
> 
> -- 
> Debian Science Blend
> 
> ___
> Blends-commit mailing list
> blends-com...@lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/blends-commit
> 

-- 
http://fam-tille.de