Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: need fonts-{assamese,marathi,nepali,urdu} metapackages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=351571
------- Additional Comments From nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-10-26 04:25 EST -------
(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > Why do you need all those metapackages?
>
> Well the problem is the comps package mechanism is still pretty.
> I think Jeremy Katz wants to think about ways to improve the situation
> but that basically requires major changes in comps (yum).
There is always room for improvement in our packaging tools, that's not new
> Basically the current problem is that language groups list their fonts
> requirements and some languages require the same fonts. Then if one
> of the language groups is uninstalled the shared font with the other
> language will get removed.
This is not a common case - most often users install the language groups sets
they need and never remove them
> Metapackages at least provides a mechanism
> to workaround this problem.
And make it impossible for a user to uninstall part of the metapackage set, and
creep in other package deps, and generally speaking kill most of the benefits of
splitting packages. Additionaly metapackages block spins from making different
grouping choices based on their target audience and space constraints.
> But now that we install most fonts by default anyway perhaps fonts
> don't need to be listed in language groups as much as before.
Please forget this argument. Even if metapackages stay you'll have to document
fonts in comps properly because defaults are only defaults, users are allowed to
make other choices, and if you don't have fine-grained package lists in comps
they can't do them in our GUI tools.
> We also introduced them for scim for the same reason.
> Again a possible solution may be to install scim support by default
> again after all, like we in F7.
>
> > Fedora usual policy is to avoid metapackages,
> > package grouping should be done via comps group
>
> Actually metapackages are becoming more common in Fedora
> and I don't really understand the aversion to them: in some
> cases they seem to be very useful.
Metapackages are quick hacks that can help doing short-term workarounds, they
have lots of drawbacks and are an absolute pain to get rid of later. I though
that was well understood but since it's not the case I'll ask FPC to make
official guidelines on their use.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
_______________________________________________
Fedora-fonts-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
