RPMGroups -- time to refresh? [was Re: Question about how to announce packages]

[Michael Tiemann]

Actually, I think it's an excellent question to ask how things like this
(and related subjects) should be organized.  I don't think we should be
stuck with categorizations that were defined, by fiat, 5+ years ago. 
Much has happened, and a good (better?) characterization tree might be a
good thing for a near-term version of Fedora.  Eric Raymond has spoken
that he'd like to present the Trove (http://www.catb.org/~esr/trove/). 
I for one think it might be useful to find some happy medium between the
obviously small number of groups defined by
http://www.fedora.us/wiki/RPMGroups, the large number defined by the
Trove, those defined implicitly and explicitly by ibiblio, etc.  I don't
want this to confound the discussion about how Fedora Collections might
be defined, but I do think that a proper hierarchy of functionality
would help both the archivists, collectors, and applicators of open
source technologies.

M

On Fri, 2004-08-06 at 11:37, Neil Horman wrote:
> Silke Reimer wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 11:07:51AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> > 
> >>Silke Reimer wrote:
> >>
> >>>Hallo list again,
> >>>
> >>>I just did my self-introduction and immediately I have my first
> >>>questions:
> >>>
> >>>1. 
> >>>If I want to announce and provide the packages which I produced, is
> >>>it necessary to set up a special directory tree on my server
> >>>(something like fedora/2/i386/RPMS.unstable etc.) where the packages
> >>>are made available for download?
> >>>
> >>>2.
> >>>I am not sure about the right Fedora tree for my packages. Most of
> >>>them are stable in my opinion and could placed in testing but since
> >>>these are my first Fedora packages I am thinking about to place them
> >>>in unstable for the start. What do you think?
> >>>
> >>>3. 
> >>>I don't know which official group I should use. For the libraries
> >>>this is rather easy. But I don't what to do with GIS software
> >>>(perhaps Applications/Productivity). It is even more difficult with
> >>>geodata.  They don't seem to fit to any group of RH (s.
> >>>http://www.fedora.us/wiki/RPMGroups). Any idea?
> >>>
> >>>Ciao,
> >>>
> >>>	Silke
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>Check out the QA and Submission policy link at www.fedora.us:
> >>http://www.fedora.us/wiki/PackageSubmissionQAPolicy
> > 
> > 
> > OK. This does help for point 1. Sorry for asking this stupid
> > question. But I still don't know what to do with 2. and 3. Of course
> > I could let this open for the QA-people but I think it does make
> > sense to fill in the right values from the very beginning.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > 	Silke 
> > 
> > 
> 
> They aren't stupid questions. :)
> 
> 2) I think its best left up to you.  QA people will comment on what they 
> think about you're decision when you submit the package.  If you aren't 
> sure as to the stability of your package, I'd put it in unstable. Move 
> it later, when you feel its ready.
> 
> 3) I think Applications/Productivity is a fine place to put GIS 
> software, but again, your decision.
> Neil
> 
> -- 
> /***************************************************
>   *Neil Horman
>   *Software Engineer
>   *Red Hat, Inc.
>   *nhorman at redhat.com
>   *gpg keyid: 1024D / 0x92A74FA1
>   *http://pgp.mit.edu
>   ***************************************************/
>