On Tue, 2004-05-25 at 21:49 -0400, Brad Smith wrote: > 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? The problem with using the Group field is that it means that reorganizing the way packages get displayed requires a rebuild of the packages. This is very heavy-weight, especially when you consider that different sites may want slightly different categorizations of packages. Having them to have to rebuild the packages to get this is non-ideal as that's far more fragile and something that's likely to not succeed or introduce other problems. Editing an XML file is fairly low risk Jeremy
