[Fedora-packaging] meta-package guideline needed ?

Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underwood at gmail.com
Mon Jan 12 13:49:31 UTC 2009

2009/1/12 Patrice Dumas <pertusus at free.fr>:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 12:29:32AM +1100, David Timms wrote:
>> Hi,
>> It seems there is some limitations on using comps groups (please correct
>> me if these are solvable another way):
>> - such a group can not cause the requiring of for example an i386
>> package on an x86_64 machine.
>> - to workaround (rpm 4.x limitations) above, such a group can not cause
>> the requiring of an i386 package by requiring a file only available in
>> the i386 package.
> Also some packages of the group can be removed, while a meta-package
> prevents that, as long as the meta-package itself is present. This
> can also be seen as an advantage, depending on the situation, but it is
> definitely a difference.

My perception (which may be incorrect) is that the general use case
for meta packages is to simplify the installation of a group of
subpackages of one package. Whereas the use case for comps groups
seems presently more targeted towards installation of a larger set of
packages which are often not subpackages. If that is a correct
perception, it suggests that this isn't an either/or question, as
comps groups and meta packages are solving different but related


More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list