Brad Smith wrote on Tuesday 25 May 2004 18:49: > I concede the point about utils like anaconda being geared more toward > using comps.xml than the Group field and agree that we should settle on > one rather than both. But I'm not convinced that it's better to keep all > this information in one file (even one file per repo) instead of in the > packages themselves. What, other than current development trends, > warrants the use of a file that would need to be updated every time a > package got added to a repository if reaching an accepted standard for > Group field values would suffice? I collect packages from various places, make a yumgroups.xml (yum's analog to comps.xml), and publish my own package groups in my local custom yum repository. I'd have to rebuild all the collected packages with my own Group: header if install-group membership was keyed off of that header instead of yumgroups.xml. Possibly after a careful rethinking of the problem, it would become clear that a Group: header suffices, but right now it's awfully handy to have an easily-edited yumgroups.xml. David
