How important is comps.xml to us these days? Which packages should be in comps.xml and which not?

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 21.09.2008 23:33, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Tim Lauridsen <tim.lauridsen <at> googlemail.com> writes:
> [...]
> IMHO, a much better approach would be to:
> * throw out the hardcoded categories! We have that information in comps.xml, 
> PackageKit should not try to duplicate it.
> * display the comps.xml groups instead of the hardcoded categories and
> * add tristate checkboxes next to the groups, like in Anaconda: by default, 
> they're in the gray state, unless you have all packages installed (checked) or 
> none (unchecked); they can be checked or unchecked, which is equivalent to a 
> groupinstall or groupremove, but the only way to get them into the gray state 
> is to individually install or remove packages from the group (using the list 
> view on the right).

Strong +1 with one addition for us:

* Fedora and its package maintainers need to way better job making sure 
that most if not all packages are properly listed in comps.xml -- 
otherwise a good portion of our packages won't show up in any of the groups

CU
knurd