package functionality - is it a core feature?

Jeff Spaleta jspaleta at gmail.com
Wed Mar 9 02:54:04 UTC 2005


On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 21:41:54 -0500, Havoc Pennington <hp at redhat.com> wrote:
> My point was to only have the stuff that's in a comps group in Core at
> all (and then the debate about what's in Core can be more about which
> comps group, e.g. "does Java Development go in Core" rather than "does
> package XYZ go in Core")
> 
> Of course there can be flames about which packages are in the comps
> groups... but that seems somewhat more manageable than an undefined
> Core/Extras line.

+1

But I warn you the discussion about how to define comps groupings is
going to get messy. Comps  has to be extended into extras...
organizing extras into groupings is going to be a dentist visit sort
of fun.  You might be able to pigeon hole Core into sane, intutive
functionality groups that ui experts will love to expose to Core
users, but what ever group naming scheme works for Core is going to
break down a bit in the larger Extras space.
Do you really want to expose seperate groupings like 
gnome games, java games, kde games
as comps groupings in whatever ui a user sees?

-jef




More information about the Fedora-maintainers mailing list