I find lsst_ci useful because it builds packages such as obs_decam. From that perspective I do not feel its function is like the stack demo. It would be useful to have lsst_ci explicitly listed as a package so it is obvious it is being built (and because it reflects what one might build using lsstsw).

lsst_ci is not intended to be used as an end user consumable metapackage and it may gain additional functionality in the future, including incorporating the stack demo. At present, we want it to build in any circumstance in which the demo should be run, which is why it was tied to the pre-existing SKIP_DEMO option. This is also a convenience to the end user as they do not need to add lsst_ci to a custom product list.

If a metapackage which larger scope that lsst_distrib is desired, we should create one.

I still don't understand why this all can't be solved by running with a blank product list. I think Joshua Hoblitt and Russell Owen are having different conversations.

I personally like seeing the list of packages that will be built, for the following reasons:

• It is clear what will be built
• I can edit the list, instead of starting from scratch, if I want a variation of the default
• I can use the list as a reference when I build my own stack with lsstsw

Since lsst_ci will grow functionality that makes it unsuitable in the long run for the purpose I have in mind, I filed DM-6551. It might still make sense to expilcitly include it in the list for now, but we can also limp along with what we have.