Subject: Re: storm-pkg (Re: status of the CD)
From: Torsten Landschoff (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Jun 02 2000 - 04:32:59 CEST
On Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 12:42:49AM +0200, Peter Ganten wrote:
> > If we do present the other package tools at our booth, should we have them
> > on that CD as well? Or at least a need, which says where you're able to
> > obtain them?
> I don`t like the idea of including stormpkg on our CD, because
> a) we are planing to make a _debian_ CD, so we should concentrate on
> debian-tools, which are part of the official distribution.
> b) There is no upgrade path. If a user installs stormpkg from our CD,
> he has to include the stormix-site in his sources.list, because
> otherwise it can be removed by apt during a dist-upgrade, which is
> bad, if the user uses this tool as his main installation-tool.
stormpkg will be part of woody, so there will be an upgrade path. Neuro
(arg, forgot the real name again) wanted to do the woody package. As it
is GPL it is that easy: If he does not do it, I will do it. We need a nice
package manager in Debian. And stormpkg definately is - and it is a lot
better than dselect.
> console-apt, which is in the list now, is also problematic, but this
> is a debian-tool and there is a high likelihood, that it will be
> included in future releases of debian. But in case of doubt, I would
> even exclude console-apt.
console-apt should not have been removed in the first place. The bug was
not release critical, Dark was a big to trigger happy that time :(
Anyway, we can't change it now, it will not be in potato. But hell,
I think we have to include it.
-- Torsten Landschoff Bluehorn@IRC <email@example.com> Debian Developer and Quality Assurance Committee Member
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Fri Jun 02 2000 - 06:01:33 CEST