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

Richard Hughes hughsient at
Mon Sep 22 20:43:10 UTC 2008

On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 11:22 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> So your solution is to invent something else entirely, rather than
> helping Fedora clean up its groupings definitions?  Really?  Nice.

No. PK groups are made up _from_ the comps groups. There are just an
order of magnitude less options, and it's a flat list rather than a
tree. Comps supports optional, mandatory, suggested and the sort of
power user stuff that I just don't want to support in PackageKit.

For me to "clean up the groups" would be to rip out all optional groups,
rip out most of the obscure categories and add lots of packages with
lots of extra deps. I'm sure that's not what you want me to do with
comps at all.

If you want to actually help with this stuff, can I suggest you join the
PackageKit mailing list and discuss there? Fedora isn't the only
consumer of PackageKit, and I'm keen on working upstream on ideas and
policies with other distros rather than just defending decisions made
upstream that affect fedora.

And just correcting you: this wasn't _my_ decision, this was the result
of working with lots of other distros. Sarcasm doesn't help anybody.


More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list