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

[Chris Ricker]

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Jeff Spaleta wrote:

> On 7/14/05, Eric R. Meyers <ermeyers at adelphia.net> wrote:
> > Gentlemen,
> > 
> > Consensus is building.
> > 
> > I don't care what the grouping views are called. We just need to agree, and we
> > are.  One of the major issues will be clarifying (defuzzying) the groups, and
> > I'll use the group "web-server" as an example.  It's a generic name for
> > Typal/Component group.  It should be made pure to clarify (defuzzify) its
> > grouping purpose.  So packages like 'apachetop' and 'awstats' will need to be
> > moved out into another Typal/Component group called web-server-accessories.
> 
> Uhm.. why exactly do i need a web-server-accessories group?  Why can't
> those packages be optional members of the web server group?   If you
> continue this trend of sub-divding groups so that accessory or
> optional packages are in their own accessory group... you'll end up
> with hundreds of visible groups as you subdivide group definitions. 
> This is not a good solution.
> 
> The comps definition makes room for "optional" packages in a group..
> it makes perfect sense to me to place accessories into existing groups
> and mark them as "optional" so that tools can expose those packages
> accordingly.

You can get both approaches simply by including the "subgroups" in the 
main groups and using uservisible as appropriate.

Something like:

<group>
  <id>web-server-tools</id>
  <uservisible>false</uservisible>
  <packagelist>
    <packagereq type="optional">awstats</package>
    <packagereq type="optional">apachetop</package>
  </packagelist>
</group>

<group>
  <id>web-server</id>
  <uservisible>true</uservisible>
  <grouplist>
    <groupreg>web-server-tools</groupreq>
  </grouplist>
  <packagelist>
    <packagereq type="optional">lighttpd</packagereq>
    <packagereq type="optional">thttpd</packagereq>
  </packagelist>
</group>

should do the right thing

later,
chris