On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 2:27 AM, Nicolas Mailhot
<nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Le dimanche 11 avril 2010 à 10:06 +0400, Peter Lemenkov a écrit :
>> 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).
>
> If you want fancy arguments replace it with "consistency". I don't
> believe comps is dramatically better than metapackages (or the contrary)
> but comps is the Fedora choice and our distribution is comps-oriented,
> and it does not help our users if some package islands start using
> different conventions from the rest of the distro.
Not to rehash anything, but a little more info on what other "package
islands" are doing :)
We've been doing this in the on the Perl side for a while now -- since
we split "perl" out into multiple subpackages, we've had a "perl-core"
metapackage that ties it all together, for those wishing to ensure
that all parts of Perl traditionally thought of as "core" are
installed. To my knowledge, there's never been any _technical_
problem with this approach, and it transparently "Just Works" with the
typical "yum upgrade" process.
This approach has worked well for us, and, at a technical level, if
done properly I don't see why it wouldn't work well for Erlang as
well.
-Chris
--
Chris Weyl
Ex astris, scientia
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
