Le mer, 26/05/2004 Ã 08:16 -0400, Jeff Spaleta a Ãcrit : > On Wed, 26 May 2004 11:02:36 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot > <nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Any setup that does not allow in-package hints, distro policy and local > > sysadmin overlay will f*-up one of these people. > > Have you not been listening to seth? > yum can merge group definitions from multiple sources. I'm really not > convinced you NEED in package group tags, just like i don't think you > NEED in package recommend tags. You publish packages in a repo And this is where you didn't listen to me. All the world is not a yum repo. Right now yum is an *optional* rpm overlay. If you make yum mandatory for something as trivial as rpm classification you kill a lot of rpm's interest. How do you handle single-rpm publication on sf on your setup ? How do you handle rpm -Uvh http://foo.org/bar.rpm ? How do you handle using a CD of unindexed rpms as a yum source ? Are you seriously suggesting someone needs all the repository plumbing just to declare a package is a game, a gnome applet or whatever ? Why not get all the metadata out of spec files while you're at this ? The group tag is broken mostly because it is 1. mono-valuated 2. not standardised 3. interpreted as-is instead of getting through even the dumbest filter/formatter Frankly nothing I've read so far justifies moving this info out of the spec files and making yum an hard requirement. Changing the format/allowed values yes. Changing the way it is parsed/interpreted yes. Moving it out ? No. You have to give a lot more compelling arguments than "it works better than foo known-broken-for-ages setup" to sell something that goes against package=standalone software unit rule. -- Nicolas Mailhot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
