RPM groups and comps groups, was: FC5T2 ready for even a test release?

[Jeremy Katz]

On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 14:21 +0100, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-01-22 at 10:28 -0500, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> > Some of us, are working with the maintainers to identify which
> > packages are not incorporated into the comps grouping structure
> 
> Maybe an RPM package's group should match the (default/primary) comps
> group of that package. That way we theoretically could have a
> "comps-merge" tool which would update comps with new packages,
> automatically sorting them into their respective default/primary groups
> (perhaps marking them as "fuzzy" just to overstretch the gettext
> analogy ;-).

This then implies that all packages are listed in comps which is just
not the case.  Many packages are just libraries and thus get pulled in
only as dependencies and aren't the sort of thing that should be user
visible.  Additionally, one of the primary points of the grouping in
comps was to make it so that changes could be made without requiring a
rebuild of the package.

Jeremy