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

[Richard Hughes]

On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 11:20 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 09:41 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> > NSFU (not suitable for us) actually.
> 
> What's your definition of "us"?  Showing the users one set of package
> information during install, and then a completely different one after
> install is not suitable either.

Surely with a live CD we don't show the user any sets of groups at all?

> Is "not suitable for us" supposed to mean that PK is trying to hard to
> be generic across the distros so that we lose the classifications and
> groupings we work on in Fedora, so that PK is not suitable for Fedora?

No, we keep the groupings as the yum backend supports them as part of
"collections". I'm just not showing the giant tree of arbitrary
classifications as the main point of user interaction.

Richard.