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

[James Antill]

On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 21:34 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:

> 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.

 gpk-application 0.2.5/0.3.2 list 20 hardcoded "groups", including such
joys as "Legacy".

 yum grouplist has 45 with just Fedora-9, and 46 if you include the
updates repo. (we added "SUGAR Desktop Environment" -- listed in the
"Other" group in PK, not even the "Other desktops").

 Most of the difference seems to be:

1. PK doesn't have any of the '*Development*' groups (9), 
2. PK has a single Servers group instead of each of the specific servers
groups (9).

...also PK doesn't have any of the specific groups like "Authoring and
Publishing", "Engineering and Scientific" or amusingly "Fedora
Packager". It also screws up the "*Legacy*" groups putting the legacy
fonts in the Fonts group, for example.

 In short it's arbitrarily different, hardcoded and just plain wrong.
But hey, you've done "substantial user research" while we're just lowly
developers, so feel free to keep ignoring us.

> None of the people in
> http://www.packagekit.org/pk-profiles.html could tell me what they
> expected to find in base-system/system-tools or
> base-system/admin-tools,
> or tell me the difference between them.

 _Well done_ for bringing up rpm specfile groups which are obsolete, as
I'm sure you know, and have been since before PK existed.

-- 
James Antill <james.antill at redhat.com>
Red Hat
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20080923/e1833d2f/attachment.sig>