No dynamic groups in PackageKit

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 23.09.2008 19:58, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 19:52 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> Just wondering and making sure I get this right: What exactly do you 
>> mean by "changed" in the latter sentence?
>>
>> (1) just use the same ids and description and list only the packages 
>> from RPM Fusion in the rpmfusion comps.xml files
>>
>> (2) import the whole comps.xml stuff from Fedora, keep it in sync and 
>> add the RPM Fusion packages
>>
>> I suppose you meant (1)?
> 
> I think I misspoke on the translation side, that likely doesn't matter.
> James gave a better description of what happened.
 >
> I'd recommend using 1 if you want your packages to show up along side
> other Fedora packages in the same groups.

I'll give it a try in RPM Fusions devel branch; we can easily switch it 
back later if needed.

> I think this doesn't solve an issue where you add the Livna repo at
> install time in anaconda, as there may still be a bug that the group
> memberships don't get re-evaluated when a new repo is added, so the
> livna group members may not be added to the install list.  That's just a
> bug though and could probably be fixed.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=239167

Was closed as WONTFIX :-/ So I suppose that bug is still around in 
anaconda. We really need to get this fixed because otherwise it's 
impossible to get the rpmfusion-release package automatically installed 
for people that enable RPM Fusion during install with anaconda. Which 
makes the whole idea to enable a repo during install mostly useless IMHO....

That brings me to a different question: what's the long term solution 
for package selection in anaconda? It's a bit odd to offer the old pirut 
frontend in anaconda during install and having a frontend for PK later 
on the installed system that looks quite different...

>> P.S.: Why the heck hasn't anybody told me the above when I asked for a 
>> better way to fix the mess livna created a few months ago?
> I'd have to dig through IRC logs, but I'm pretty sure I stated exactly
> what you did in #1, along the lines of "either use the same
> name/description as Fedora proper does, or use your own group names".
> It seemed to me that livna chose the latter and the problem was
> "solved".

Someone else IIRC suggested that renaming was the better way to solve 
the problem, and thus that was what I did. But whatever, that is history 
now or will be soon, so it doesn't matter much anymore (and I don't care).

CU
knurd