http://fedoraproject.org/extras/4/i386/repodata/

[Matthew Miller]

On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 02:14:21PM -0400, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> this is unwieldly and doesn't scale out well to 3rd party repos who
> need to redefine groups that a package belongs in without having to
> rebuild any packages.

Ideally, the tags/troves would be both general and numerous enough that this
wouldn't be a problem.

I'm lookin' at it and seeing the *opposite* issue -- every time the repo
wants to pull in another little package, they've got this extra step of
finding an external file and updating metadata to sync in changes.


> yum groupinstall "Crap for Jef's lan"   works because I have a mangled
> comps.xml file in a local repo and i don't have to rebuild any rpms. 

This would still work -- you would define "Crap for Jef's lan" as including
packages with tags X, Y, and Q.

But I see what you're saying. Really, I think this comes down to another
difference between the two separate uses for package groupings -- the
logical/task-based "Component" type lends itself more to external definition
as per comps.xml groups, and the "what kinds of things am I" more to in-spec
definitions a la rpm Group.

Kind of a shame that both of these use the same word....

And hmmm, so, I guess to my surprise I find myself arguing for making more
use of the Group tag after all -- earlier, I'd suggested reducing the
accepted values to "Core" and "Extras".....

-- 
Matthew Miller           mattdm at mattdm.org        <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux      ------>                <http://linux.bu.edu/>
Current office temperature: 79 degrees Fahrenheit.
x