New Comps Groups

[Christopher Stone]

On 11/27/06, Jeremy Katz <katzj at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 21:52 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > Le lundi 27 novembre 2006 à 15:33 -0500, Brian Pepple a écrit :
> > > On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 13:24 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > > > 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?
> > >
> > > I'm in agreement with Bill on this.  Pretty much all the python-*
> > > packages should be pulled in as dependencies.  Am I missing something
> > > here?
> >
> > It's pretty much impossible to autodetect missing comps entries unless
> > every package is systematically put in comps. No autochecking means low
> > QA.
>
> But the entire point is that everything _SHOULDN'T_ be there.  If so,
> then it's no better than a list[1]


How is adding a half dozen new groups to Development in comps going to
reduce comps to be noting better than yum list '*'?



>
> > Also if a group is too big it should be broken up in lighter
> > finer-grained ones IMHO. Choosing the right group is much less work than
> > writing the package description, and often more useful for users.
>
> And when a user now has to go through 100 groups to find the one they
> want?


I have no plans to add 100 new groups.



>
> Jeremy
>
> [1] Grouping is somewhat arbitrary by nature and different people will
> have different ideas on how packages should be grouped.  By your
> argument, I could just as well make the categories letters of the
> alphabet and group based on the first letter of the package name. But
> that *doesn't* provide anything useful for users.


No one is suggesting to change comps to just have groups based on the
alphabet.  Yes, grouping by alphabet provides nothing useful, but that
doesnt mean other grouping methods are not useful.  By your argument,
we should eliminate the concept of a group from human society all
together because no one would be able to agree on any grouping.  This
ofcouse makes absolutely no sense.