On Tue, 25 May 2004, David Kewley wrote: > 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. +1 I do the same thing as I am sure do others. Tom
