Hi, 2010/4/11 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx>: > Hello! > > 2010/4/10 Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > >> So you are proposing a metapackage. Fedora has historically frowned at >> metapackages, we prefer to create comps groups to bundle multiple >> packages together. > > Sorry, but this looks like purely non-technical argument for me (I > mean using verbs like "prefer", "frown" and so on). I, for example, > prefer meta-package, Fedora Haskellers prefer metapackage > (haskell-platform) too. My scheme introduces zero maintenance efforts > for those who are not interested in using modularized erlang package, > while your one (with existing for a while compatible package) will > definitely cause issues and complaints. This is to maintain consistency with upstream. We also have a Haskell Development group that you can install that is essentially the same thing. Since haskell-platform is marketed as such, not to mention that it is essentially a distribution package from upstream, it defies the minimal expectations to not offer it. That said, could we do things differently without confusing people new to Fedora, having a meta package isn't a hard requirement either. Please don't confuse the forest with the trees :). -Yaakov -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
