[Pkg-ltsp-devel] New proposed design

[Gustavo Franco]

On 5/17/06, Oliver Grawert <ogra at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> hi,
> Am Mittwoch, den 17.05.2006, 10:49 -0300 schrieb Gustavo Franco:
> >
> > ltsp-ubuntu provides, replaces and conflicts with ltsp-profile
> > ltsp-debian provides, replaces and conflicts with ltsp-profile
> >
> > Debian:
> > ltsp-server depends on ltsp-common, ltsp-debian
> >
> > Ubuntu:
> > ltsp-server depends on ltsp-common, ltsp-ubuntu
> >
> > CDD:
> > ltsp-server depends on ltsp-common, ltsp-profile (or ltsp-projectname)
> >
> do you really think its necessary to have another binary package ? why
> not have ltsp-profile on all distros and have the distro specifics done
> at build time, so we dont need a compicated replaces conflicts
> mechanism, i'm pretty sure there will be other distro specific things
> going on during package buildtime. also there should be no need for
> special setups in CDDs (at least i was able to avoid that in edubuntu vs
> ubuntu) the defaults should be good enough to be used universally and if
> you urgently want additions that cant be applied upstream, you can use
> the plugin system.

No i don't, i just did a braindump in case we need that. Btw, if we add both
'debian and ubuntu' subdirectories in ltsp-profile binary, we probably will
need lsb_release (package: lsb-release) in. Well, that's it the CDDs will use
the plugins (and install a new one if necessary) like Ubuntu and Debian will.
With that sentence i was just pointing out that 'distribution plugins' could be
called just 'profiles' (ltsp-profile package as you've suggested).

> i like the idea of having plugin subdirs, but i dont like the idea of
> splitting up collaboration into the single distros/CDDs since it will
> produce more work for us all if we need additional porting beyond
> creating a generic code that suits us all.
>
> sorry for not speaking up earlier about the topic, but we're in
> preparation of a release here...
>

Ok, no problem. Good luck with edubuntu. :)

regards,
-- stratus