On Sun, 2004-08-08 at 19:47 -0400, Michael Tiemann wrote: > Actually, I think it's an excellent question to ask how things like this > (and related subjects) should be organized. I don't think we should be > stuck with categorizations that were defined, by fiat, 5+ years ago. > Much has happened, and a good (better?) characterization tree might be a > good thing for a near-term version of Fedora. Eric Raymond has spoken > that he'd like to present the Trove (http://www.catb.org/~esr/trove/). > I for one think it might be useful to find some happy medium between the > obviously small number of groups defined by > http://www.fedora.us/wiki/RPMGroups, the large number defined by the > Trove, those defined implicitly and explicitly by ibiblio, etc. I don't > want this to confound the discussion about how Fedora Collections might > be defined, but I do think that a proper hierarchy of functionality > would help both the archivists, collectors, and applicators of open > source technologies. I think for the purposes of core and to some extent for collections w/i extras we'll need some way of describing groups comprised of specific packages. This is what comps.xml has done for a while for rhl/fc but comps needs to be freshened up a bit to include: - archs (sorry jeremy) - possibly partial or complete versions - more granularity of group requirement This is part of the discussion we've had wrt to the xml metadata for rpm repositories. This works not from w/i the package but from the outisde, of course, and it would allow a per-repository basis to describe groups of packages. -sv
