Re: Bug#906016: transition: gjs built with mozjs60

Cyril Brulebois <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.linux.debian.devel.boot,gmane.linux.debian.ports.s390,gmane.linux.debian.devel.gtk-gnome
Organization Debian
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Hi,

Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <[email protected]> (2019-02-08):
> > On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 at 10:25:01 +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> >> On 17/12/2018 15:56, Simon McVittie wrote:
> >>> The options I can see are:
> >>>
> >>> * Accept that task-gnome-desktop is not going to be installable on s390x.
> >>>   Change the testing migration scripts to skip installability testing for
> >>>   that package on s390x, or ignore the fact that it fails. Optionally
> >>>   change tasksel to make task-gnome-desktop Architecture: any, and give it
> >>>   some Build-Depends-Arch that are not satisfiable on s390x so that it will
> >>>   not be built there.
> >>>   - s390x d-i users will not be able to install a GNOME desktop. Hopefully
> >>>     the menu item would not appear, and task-desktop would pick up the
> >>>     second-preference desktop instead, which currently seems to be XFCE?
> >>>   - Risk: is it possible to ignore uninstallability of task-gnome-desktop
> >>>     without ignoring uninstallability of other task packages?
> > 
> > I would prefer this option if possible: the GNOME desktop is clearly
> > not intended for use on mainframes, and I doubt anyone is seriously
> > trying to use it there (as opposed to individual GNOME apps in a
> > remote-desktop framework, which might be something that people do).
> > However, it requires action from the release team and d-i
> > maintainers.
> 
> Cyril, can we do something to not offer task-gnome-desktop on s390x?
> Does that need changes in d-i or tasksel?

FWIW we already have this in place, regarding the default desktop:
  https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/tasksel/blob/master/default_desktop

I'm not sure how to hide a particular entry on a particular arch; I'm
not a tasksel expert and won't be one in the next 5 minutes. But it
seems to me the immediate concern was about the default desktop anyway,
which shouldn't be an issue in the first place because of this
default_desktop shell function?


Cheers,
-- 
Cyril Brulebois ([email protected])            <https://debamax.com/>
D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=ZiHC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.