On Fri, 2003-11-14 at 00:35, David Farning wrote: > On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 22:24, seth vidal wrote: > > why would there be a move away from comps? Comps is not a bad system at > > all for groups specifications. The metadata for group arrangements > > > > yum has a comps/yumgroups.xml merge class that takes multiple comps and > > attempts to merge them into on set of groups for all your repositories. > > In my first couple of passes through the -packages.comps stuff I did not > see an straight forward way to add new information to the comps data > set. Thanks for setting me straight. > > > look at what yumcomps.py does in yum and look at how it is called to merge in multiple yumgroups.xml files (which are the same as a comps.xml) > I ask this question as I look at the mind numbing number of commandline > options plus the five back ends that up2date has to deal with. If > feasible, it would easiest if everything was a yum repo. Then it would > be just a matter of pointing your tool at the repo and > installing/updating. So here's the deal. The various pkg tool authors and developers got together and we've been working on a format so it's not a 'yum repo' or an 'apt repo' it's just a repository with metadata. I don't want everyone to use yum repos, nor do I want everyone to use apt repos. I want everyone to use repos and not have all this mess. -sv