New Comps Groups

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le mardi 28 novembre 2006 à 12:09 -0500, Jesse Keating a écrit :
> On Tuesday 28 November 2006 09:59, Paul Howarth wrote:
> > > Only if you assume that it is a good idea to list all packages in comps.
> > > Some people disagree with that.
> >
> > The only underlying objection I recall seeing is that adding all
> > packages to comps presents too many choices to users, and that problem
> > doesn't happen if hidden groups are used; did I miss some other reason?
> 
> Whats the point of adding it to comps if you're making it hidden?

The point is, people can classify properly packages, and apps choose to
show more or less groups depending on the target audience.

For example repoview will typically show all groups, anaconda the most
important ones, yum something in between

> You're going to still have to answer the 
> question at review time,

Actually one of the big arguments of the comps vs rpm group crowd was
that comps classification could happen at a different level than the
packaging. If we want to bolt compsifying so hard to packages at review
time, I don't see the point of choosing an out-of-package metadata
format

> Adding it into comps into a hidden view just is one more 
> complicated step, makes comps generation time that much longer, and provides 
> no improvement to end users.

I can only strongly disagree with every single statement in this §

> I'm also using comps as a method to determine what packages to gather up and 
> put onto a CD.  It really doesn't make sense to put packages on CDs that 
> aren't installable options, or aren't deps of installable options.  My tool 
> reads comps for packages, then depsolves, and then spins CDs based on the 
> results.

Well your tool only needs to learn selecting a group subset, which
you'll have to anyway, as the Fedora universe is quickly moving out of
single-disc space.

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20061128/46da00d7/attachment.sig>