New Comps Groups

[Christopher Stone]

On 11/27/06, Bill Nottingham <notting at redhat.com> wrote:
> Christopher Stone (chris.stone at gmail.com) said:
> > >Why, out of curiosity? In what cases are these something that a user
> > >wants to explicitly wade through 100 listings for?
> >
> > I do not understand this question?  Is it somehow better to wade
> > through 1000s of packages to find something instead?  Please rephrase
> > your question to be more specific.
>
> We already have a 'package search' interface for finding packages - is
> listing 100 (or however many) python-* packages better than this? In
> what way? Are they not getting pulled in for dependencies when necessary?
>
> Basically, what's the use case for when a user would want to scroll through
> all of python-* or perl-* looking for a package?

When the user is a developer, and that developer want to see what
python/perl modules are available to her.

If you ask what good it provides, then I have to ask what harm would
it cause?  If there was a "Perl Develoment" group added to the
Development comps category how would that make things more difficult
for users?  A user isn't going to be looking in the development part
of comps unless she is a developer, or clicked there by accident.

If it makes everyone happy, I can not add a perl or python development
group, but I dont see any harm in doing so.