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

[Panu Matilainen]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008, seth vidal wrote:

> On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 20:47 -0400, Michel Salim wrote:
>> 2008/9/23 James Antill <james.antill at redhat.com>:
>>>
>>>  _Well done_ for bringing up rpm specfile groups which are obsolete, as
>>> I'm sure you know, and have been since before PK existed.
>>
>> I've been wondering -- is there any reason we don't get rpmbuild to
>> strip the group out of the package metadata when it generates a binary
>> RPM?
>>
>> Also, right now, rpmdev-newspec still creates a Group field, and even
>> prepopulates it for certain templates (e.g. libraries)
>
> it'll be maintained for compat reasons by it is no longer required to
> build a package as of the new rpm in rawhide, iirc.

Yup. We can't drop off the group tag just like that, not only various 
software expects it to be there, it's documented as a mandatory field in 
LSB.

rpmbuild no longer requires the Group: tag in specs, but it drops in 
"Unspecified" if the spec doesn't set it to comply (the current rawhide 
rpm wont do this but it's fixed upstream, rawhide will get it in next
version update)

 	- Panu -