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

Nils Philippsen nphilipp at redhat.com
Fri Jan 27 14:20:33 UTC 2006

On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 11:57 -0500, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> 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

Last time I looked (admittedly quite a while ago), comps also contained
hidden groups, I guess this would be where libraries should go to by

> 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.

That hypothetical comps-merge tool should certainly only add new
packages, not shove around existing ones.

     Nils Philippsen    /    Red Hat    /    nphilipp at redhat.com
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
 safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."     -- B. Franklin, 1759
 PGP fingerprint:  C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F  656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011

More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list