Core vs. Non-Core definitions

Tue Aug 7 12:39:34 UTC 2012

If we use the "Task" field to identify whether or not an application is 
"core". We should ensure that the "Task" field is defined somewhere. 
This definition should explain why it can be used to define whether or 
not an application is "core", and what values would define an 
application as "core". Since this is part of the Debian package control 
file, I would expect this to be done at a Debian level. Although it 
could be made Ubuntu specific, I don't think that would be the right 
approach. Personally I don't understand what the "Task" field is for, or 
why it signifies that an application is important.

Clearly this discussion is based on the fact that the definition of 
"core" is open to interpretation; so there will be disagreement on what 
people consider "core", but personally I think the fact that an 
application is important to the system is what defines an application as 
core, and not whether it's important to a user. This is why I suggested 
using the "Priority" field, which is defined at the Debian level, and 
consider both "required" and "important" applications as "core".

I agree that all "core" packages should be in the "main" repository i.e. 
they are free and supported. However, we should note that this shouldn't 
be used as part of a definition, because there is a theoretical 
possibility that a "core" application may not be in "main", because it's 
been removed, which itself would be a bug. I know this has happened to 
free applications that are removed from the universe repository for some 
reason e.g. when VLC and mplayer, which are both free, were not 
included. Saying that it's not "core" because it's not in "main" would 
lead to a circular argument.

Marcel.

On 06/08/12 15:55, Thomas Ward wrote:
> Marcel,
> C de-Avillez (hggdh) and I were on IRC in #ubuntu-bugs discussing your 
> response, and we made an observation that the "Priority" is used in 
> Debian to determine how important a package is to the system, not to 
> the user, such that if a package is Priority = Required, and you 
> remove it, the system is likely to misbehave.
> By using the tasks approach that Brian suggested, it comes from a 
> different perspective, specifically that if its included in a task, 
> its probably considered important enough.
> As well, another check is to see whether a package exists in main or 
> not.  A universe or multiverse package is certainly non-core, but a 
> package in main might be.
> I'm still inclined to use Brian's method, though, as a preferred 
> method of identifying a "core" or "non-core" package.
> Thomas
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Marcel Admiraal 
> <marcel.admiraal at connectfree.co.uk 
> <mailto:marcel.admiraal at connectfree.co.uk>> wrote:
>
>     Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "apt-cache show" command displays
>     the contents of the Debian package control file, and there doesn't
>     appear to be a standard field "Task" defined:
>     http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html.
>
>     IMHO, I don't consider Empathy a "core" package. In fact, as the
>     "Priority" field in the same output indicates, it's optional.
>
>     I think, we should use the "Priority" field is as an indicator of
>     a "core" application. As per the definition of the "Priority"
>     field values:
>     http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-priorities,
>     any application which is "required" or "important" - necessary for
>     the functioning of the system, or expected on any system - should
>     probably be considered core.
>
>     Finally, I think if the word "core" is not defined, the wiki
>     shouldn't use it; especially not to define something else.
>
>     Marcel.
>
>
>     On 03/08/12 15:46, Thomas Ward wrote:
>>     Is there any other discussion we should do on this, or can we use
>>     Brian Murray's opinion as the methods of determining core vs.
>>     non-core packages? Or does anyone else have any other opinions on it?
>>     Thomas
>>
>>     On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Brian Murray <brian at ubuntu.com
>>     <mailto:brian at ubuntu.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 03:52:02PM -0400, Thomas Ward wrote:
>>         > I'm dredging this back up again, given a discussion with
>>         hggdh in
>>         > #ubuntu-bugs.
>>         >
>>         > This should *really* be defined, core vs. non core for
>>         Importance setting,
>>         > among other things.
>>         >
>>         > Core vs. Non-Core can make a bug either Low or Medium (see
>>         bold items, and
>>         > here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Importance):
>>
>>         I'd say packages that are a part of a task should be
>>         considered core and
>>         most other things non-core.  As an example:
>>
>>         apt-cache show empathy | grep ^Task
>>         Task: ubuntu-desktop, ubuntu-usb, edubuntu-desktop, edubuntu-usb
>>
>>         I would consider empathy as a core application.
>>
>>         Does that help?
>>
>>         --
>>         Brian Murray
>>         Ubuntu Bug Master
>>
>>         --
>>         Ubuntu-bugsquad mailing list
>>         Ubuntu-bugsquad at lists.ubuntu.com
>>         <mailto:Ubuntu-bugsquad at lists.ubuntu.com>
>>         https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugsquad
>>
>>
>
>
>     --
>     Ubuntu-bugsquad mailing list
>     Ubuntu-bugsquad at lists.ubuntu.com
>     <mailto:Ubuntu-bugsquad at lists.ubuntu.com>
>     https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugsquad
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-bugsquad/attachments/20120807/43bb6da9/attachment.html>