Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

Cyril Brulebois writes: > Philip Hands (2016-12-24): >> OK, this is tiresome -- you're complaining about question marks when I >> was still exploring the options and looking for feedback -- I could >> instead have been definite about an earlier option, but that

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

Philip Hands (2016-12-24): > OK, this is tiresome -- you're complaining about question marks when I > was still exploring the options and looking for feedback -- I could > instead have been definite about an earlier option, but that would > have deprived you of choices, and would

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

Cyril Brulebois writes: > Raphael Hertzog (2016-12-24): >> I would suggest to commit this to git, do a call for translators to >> update this new translation and then judge on the result to see if you >> have enough translations to release it for stretch. >>

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

Raphael Hertzog (2016-12-24): > I would suggest to commit this to git, do a call for translators to > update this new translation and then judge on the result to see if you > have enough translations to release it for stretch. > > I know it's late in the release cycle, but

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

On Sat, 24 Dec 2016, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > So I've just looked at the proposed changes, and adding a prompt at this > point is not an option: we're changing logic during the freeze, and > adding translatable material (not the kind of hidden stuff that might > happen with obscure preseeding

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

Philip Hands writes: > Steve McIntyre writes: > >> On Sat, Dec 24, 2016 at 02:25:48AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote: >>>Raphael Hertzog writes: >>>... So I agree with Cyril and the d-i team, we should be cautious here. Let's

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

Steve McIntyre writes: > On Sat, Dec 24, 2016 at 02:25:48AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote: >>Raphael Hertzog writes: >>... >>> So I agree with Cyril and the d-i team, we should be cautious here. >>> >>> Let's focus everybody's energy on getting Phil's patch

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

On Sat, Dec 24, 2016 at 02:25:48AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote: >Raphael Hertzog writes: >... >> So I agree with Cyril and the d-i team, we should be cautious here. >> >> Let's focus everybody's energy on getting Phil's patch merged instead >> of continuing this discussion. >

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

Raphael Hertzog writes: ... > So I agree with Cyril and the d-i team, we should be cautious here. > > Let's focus everybody's energy on getting Phil's patch merged instead > of continuing this discussion. The latest incarnation of which I think is close to ready:

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

Hi, Philip Hands (2016-12-20): > Just as a reminder for the upcoming alpha that I was trying to do > something about this by adding an extra simplified tasksel promt: > > Philip Hands writes: > ... > > The menu is now: > > > > --> standard ("${DESKTOP}") desktop

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

On Wed, 21 Dec 2016, Ole Streicher wrote: > I am quoting popcon here since they give a lower estimate of the number > of users who actually did the test. Nothing more. Nothing about importance. It gives an estimate of users who ran debootstrap and got the package installed. It does not give an

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

Hi Sam, On 21.12.2016 16:10, Sam Hartman wrote: >> "Ole" == Ole Streicher writes: > I don't find quoting popcon stats useful. You've used them to support > the claim both that this is important and that users don't find it > confusing. I am quoting popcon here since

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

> "Ole" == Ole Streicher writes: Ole> We already have more that 5700 popcon-counted installations Ole> with the blends selection in the installer. This should give Ole> some base for that. Hi. Speaking with my TC hat on. I don't find quoting popcon stats

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

Hi Holger On 20.12.2016 15:27, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 03:16:50PM +0100, Ole Streicher wrote: >> Again: the installer is there to test for 6 months now, but if it is >> inacceptably bad: why are there no complaints? > > the complaints have been there for months, you just

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

Ole Streicher (2016-12-20): > This is for sure. Cyril just states that he rather would love to remove > the blends completely, and this is something I am arguing against. No, I said this was the default action, until I have looked at proposed changes, and assessed what to do

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 03:16:50PM +0100, Ole Streicher wrote: > Again: the installer is there to test for 6 months now, but if it is > inacceptably bad: why are there no complaints? the complaints have been there for months, you just choose to consider them invalid. some people dont like to

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

Hi Steve, On 20.12.2016 15:16, Steve McIntyre wrote: > I *have* also seen users confused by the addition of the blends Can you be more specific here? Old wording (with many blends) or current solution? What was the specific problem? > into the tasksel list. A better split of the tasks (like

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

Hi Cyril, On 20.12.2016 15:01, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > Ole Streicher (2016-12-20): >> As I already wrote several times: before you do so, please show some >> evidence that in the half year that the current version of the installer >> containing a blends selection has added

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 03:01:50PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > >Ole Streicher (2016-12-20): > >> We already have more that 5700 popcon-counted installations with the >> blends selection in the installer. This should give some base for >> that. > >Surely, people asking for

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

Hi, Ole Streicher (2016-12-20): > As I already wrote several times: before you do so, please show some > evidence that in the half year that the current version of the installer > containing a blends selection has added an unacceptable amount of > confusion and that we can't

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

Hi Cyril, On 20.12.2016 10:59, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > dropping blends entirely is still my default option in case proposed > changes have too far reaching consequences. As I already wrote several times: before you do so, please show some evidence that in the half year that the current version

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

Hi, Philip Hands (2016-12-20): > Just as a reminder for the upcoming alpha that I was trying to do > something about this by adding an extra simplified tasksel promt: Thanks. I need to allocate time to test this, which this week doesn't permit. Without having looked at it yet,

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

Hi Cyril, Just as a reminder for the upcoming alpha that I was trying to do something about this by adding an extra simplified tasksel promt: Philip Hands writes: ... > The menu is now: > > --> standard ("${DESKTOP}") desktop <-- > standard server

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > As a data point: To me, as somebody who knows Debian reasonably well, > I'd associate «standard» with the priority level, which would make me > unlikely to want to choose that option, since it installs half the > universe. I'm not a native speaker, but would replacing

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

]] Philip Hands > The menu is now: > > --> standard ("${DESKTOP}") desktop <-- > standard server [text-only console & 'ssh' remote access] > other use cases > > I get the feeling that the 'standard' is pretty redundant, but just > 'desktop' and 'server' seems

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes: > Wouter Verhelst writes ("Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be > priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)"): >> On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 12:06:44PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote: >> > How ab

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

Wouter Verhelst writes ("Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)"): > On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 12:06:44PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote: > > How about one or both of: > > > > bare-bones -- nothing selec

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 12:06:44PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote: > How about one or both of: > > bare-bones -- nothing selected > minimal-server -- ssh and nothing else > > Is there any objective way of working out what other combinations would > be popular, rather than just guessing? Note

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

Hi Phil, On 10.12.2016 12:06, Philip Hands wrote: > Anyway, having done it, my first impression (which I'm surprised by) is > that the list is too short -- I think that it is perhaps because it is > much easier to select one option from a list than it is to decide what > combination of options

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

Ole Streicher writes: > Hi Phil, > > On 10.12.2016 01:03, Philip Hands wrote: >> Just to test things out, if one adds: >> >> url=hands.com/d-i/bug/846002/preseed.cfg >> >> to the kernel command line (so, hitting TAB as the installer's boot menu) >> it will tweaks d-i to

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

Hi Phil, On 10.12.2016 01:03, Philip Hands wrote: > Just to test things out, if one adds: > > url=hands.com/d-i/bug/846002/preseed.cfg > > to the kernel command line (so, hitting TAB as the installer's boot menu) > it will tweaks d-i to have such a menu. To me, this looks like a very nice

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

Ole Streicher writes: > On 09.12.2016 08:37, Philip Hands wrote: >>> On Wed, 07 Dec 2016, Philip Hands wrote: It could be much improved by making it more obvious that the heading is a heading. Even if we're unable to stop headings having a checkbox, we could

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

On 09.12.2016 08:37, Philip Hands wrote: >> On Wed, 07 Dec 2016, Philip Hands wrote: >>> It could be much improved by making it more obvious that the heading is >>> a heading. Even if we're unable to stop headings having a checkbox, we >>> could change the text and the hierarchy slightly to be

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

Raphael Hertzog writes: > So I have been following this whole discussion and I would like to > provide my input to Ole and the blends team. > > - adding a new important package to work-around the fact that tasksel > maintainers were busy/inactive was not a good move. As you

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

Quoting Raphael Hertzog (hert...@debian.org): > Christian and Cyril, what are your thoughts on this? Do you think that if > we come up with a patch implementing the above, we could get it in > stretch? What would be the last delay to come up with such a patch? From my own POV, I'm too far from

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 06:27:46PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > But more importantly, we need to not show that page at all. I would like > to suggest a first screen: > > Install packages for a: > > [X] standard desktop > [ ] standard server > [ ] minimal server > [ ] Show me more

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

Hi Raphaël and all, Raphael Hertzog (2016-12-08): > I'm thus suggesting that blends-tasks should be removed and merged in > tasksel-data. At the same time, we should fix the installer to bypass > that confusing tasksel screen that we always get by default. > > On Wed, 07 Dec

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

On 08.12.2016 18:27, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > - trying to keep blends-tasks now because we have no better option on the > table right now is not a good move either. Had you not circumvented the > d-i review at the time you introduced blends-tasks, then maybe you could > have advertised the

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

So I have been following this whole discussion and I would like to provide my input to Ole and the blends team. - adding a new important package to work-around the fact that tasksel maintainers were busy/inactive was not a good move. As you all noted, the list of blends does not change often

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

Ole Streicher writes: > On 08.12.2016 09:33, Wouter Verhelst wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 08:59:53AM +0100, Ole Streicher wrote: >>> But it also gives a wrong sign: Debian Pure Blends are by definition >>> integral part of Debian itself. But even now, this is hard to

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 09:33:04AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > It's certainly *easier* for users to understand that if they want X, Y, > or Z, they just need to install from the X, Y, or Z image. ... This argument implies an *exclusive* or which is definitely not the case. From the very

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

On 08.12.2016 09:33, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 08:59:53AM +0100, Ole Streicher wrote: >> But it also gives a wrong sign: Debian Pure Blends are by definition >> integral part of Debian itself. But even now, this is hard to understand >> for many people -- questions like

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 08:59:53AM +0100, Ole Streicher wrote: > But it also gives a wrong sign: Debian Pure Blends are by definition > integral part of Debian itself. But even now, this is hard to understand > for many people -- questions like "what is the difference between Debian > Astro and

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

Philip Hands writes ("Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)"): > Perhaps we need an aditional option at the boot prompt for a vanilla > install, that sets priority=critical or some such, so that one gets the > equivalen

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

Ole Streicher writes: > Hi Philip, > > On 06.12.2016 20:43, Philip Hands wrote: >> Could we serve their needs with an extra debian-installer/blend >> preseed to deal with this, probably aliased as just 'blend' so that >> one could type something like: >> >> blend=med >>

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

Ole Streicher writes: ... > Fully Ack. I see the current solution to integrate the Blends in Stretch > as a compromise for Stretch only; afterwards we should look to rewrite > tasksel for a better scalability. I think the current list of three is not much worse than it

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

On 06.12.2016 20:13, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > Debconf has support for pluggable UI widgets, so somebody could do this > without _too_ much work in the graphical version if they wanted, with > fallback code for the curses and text versions. In principle, you are true. One of the reasons that I

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

Hi Philip, On 06.12.2016 20:43, Philip Hands wrote: > Could we serve their needs with an extra debian-installer/blend > preseed to deal with this, probably aliased as just 'blend' so that > one could type something like: > > blend=med > > when booting the default media to get the desired

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

Hi Tollef, On 06.12.2016 17:04, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > ]] Ole Streicher > >> On 06.12.2016 10:37, Holger Levsen wrote: >>> And this *is* still pretty confusing, though admitly better than it was >>> half a year ago. >> >> The current implementation has a popcon of >5000, without a single >>

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

Andreas Tille writes: > Hi Bdale, > > On Tue, 06 Dec 2016 08:10:37 -0700 Bdale Garbee wrote: >> the first piece of advice I give most new-to-Debian users I'm helping out >> personally is to just ignore the concept of tasks and pick software they >> actually want on their

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

]] Steve McIntyre > etc. I've pondered about how to do achieve that with the existing > debconf code, but not got very far yet. Including more descriptive > text and maybe even screen shots with each would be very helpful. Debconf has support for pluggable UI widgets, so somebody could do this

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

Hi Bdale, On Tue, 06 Dec 2016 08:10:37 -0700 Bdale Garbee wrote: > the first piece of advice I give most new-to-Debian users I'm helping out > personally is to just ignore the concept of tasks and pick software they > actually want on their system. To solve this very problem we actually invented

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

Hi Sam, On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 10:28:46AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: > For what it's worth, I think the policy question here is not a > significant one. > > Holger is right that we should either fix policy or fix both > (tasksel-data and blends-tasks). > I think that is a bug that should get

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 05:04:57PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: >]] Ole Streicher > >> On 06.12.2016 10:37, Holger Levsen wrote: >> > And this *is* still pretty confusing, though admitly better than it was >> > half a year ago. >> >> The current implementation has a popcon of >5000, without a

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

]] Ole Streicher > On 06.12.2016 10:37, Holger Levsen wrote: > > And this *is* still pretty confusing, though admitly better than it was > > half a year ago. > > The current implementation has a popcon of >5000, without a single > complaint or confusion documented in the web within the last

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

For what it's worth, I think the policy question here is not a significant one. Holger is right that we should either fix policy or fix both (tasksel-data and blends-tasks). I think that is a bug that should get hashed out. I don't think it is all that timely, and I don't think it matters much

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

Philip Hands writes: > So, I'd say that the whole thing was a car-crash anyway, and this just > dropped a cigarette in the spilling petrol. Yeah. I'm not immediately sure to suggest as a way to do things differently, and this may not seem immediately helpful... but about the

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

[ Sorry for breaking the thread but despite I've subscribed the bug I need to read it in the browser since I do not receive the mails :-(] Hi Philip, On Tue, 06 Dec 2016 12:02:05 +0100 Philip Hands wrote: > There is no need for them to tick the 'Special tasks' menu item in order > to install

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

Hi, IMHO the whole discussion is mixing up two things: 1. If it is correct that blends-tasks has priority 'important' or not. 2. If the user visible presentation of Blends selection is good or not. Regarding 1. we have the following quotes: From: Holger Levsen

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

With my Debian Printing Team member hat: Le mardi, 6 décembre 2016, 10.18:23 h CET Philip Hands a écrit : > What is a print server? (CUPS) web server? (apache2) The "print server" entry in tasksel should be rethought, as it nowadays only depends on CUPS, and recommends various helper drivers

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

On 06.12.2016 12:02, Philip Hands wrote: > Ole Streicher writes: > >> On 06.12.2016 10:37, Holger Levsen wrote: >>> And this *is* still pretty confusing, though admitly better than it was >>> half a year ago. >> >> The current implementation has a popcon of >5000, without a

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

Ole Streicher writes: > On 06.12.2016 10:37, Holger Levsen wrote: >> And this *is* still pretty confusing, though admitly better than it was >> half a year ago. > > The current implementation has a popcon of >5000, without a single > complaint or confusion documented in the

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

On 06.12.2016 10:37, Holger Levsen wrote: > And this *is* still pretty confusing, though admitly better than it was > half a year ago. The current implementation has a popcon of >5000, without a single complaint or confusion documented in the web within the last six months. This is at least

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

Thanks, Phil. On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 10:18:23AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote: > It makes the "what do you want to install?" menu slightly worse by > introducing some more befuddling options to it. It was already dire > though. exactly. > Before this… [...] > So, this was already a disaster

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

Sam Hartman writes: > So, what impact does having blends-tasks have besides wasting disk > space. > It adds tasks to the installer menu. Are those tasks we want on all > system installs or not? > If this is purely about disk space, I think it's less of an issue than > if it

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 09:45:27AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > * Holger does not like the look of presenting tasks as they > where half a year ago. wrong. > * The conflict with policy seems artificial to me wrong. > and I have the > bad feeling Holger intends to hire people

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

Hi Holger, On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 08:07:19PM +, Holger Levsen wrote: > control: reassign -1 tech-ctte > control: retitle -1 blends-tasks must not be priority:important > thanks > > On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 09:43:18AM -0600, Don Armstrong wrote: > > if either of you disagree (or anyone else

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

Hi all, On 06.12.2016 00:29, Don Armstrong wrote: > [The screen shot Holger linked to is a screen shot of the installer at > the tasksel screen showing an entry for "Debian Blends" followed by a > series of entries which start with leading periods followed by entries > like "HamRadio" and

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

On Mon, 05 Dec 2016, Sam Hartman wrote: > So, what impact does having blends-tasks have besides wasting disk > space. It results in multiple extra tasks listed in the task selection screen without describing the tasks or putting them into a submenu or similar. [The screen shot Holger linked to

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

So, what impact does having blends-tasks have besides wasting disk space. It adds tasks to the installer menu. Are those tasks we want on all system installs or not? If this is purely about disk space, I think it's less of an issue than if it provides a bad user experience.

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

Control: clone -1 -2 Control: reassign -2 src:blends Control: block -2 by -1 On Mon, 05 Dec 2016, Holger Levsen wrote: > And yes, I still think it's really really wrong to have blends-tasks have > "priority: important" which makes it getting installed by each and every > debootstrap run by

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important (was Re: Bug#846002: Lowering severity)

control: reassign -1 tech-ctte control: retitle -1 blends-tasks must not be priority:important thanks On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 09:43:18AM -0600, Don Armstrong wrote: > if either of you disagree (or anyone else on the CTTE > disagrees) and still want the CTTE to resolve this (slowly), feel free >