On Monday, January 28, 2013 17:42:16 James Antill wrote: > On Mon, 2013-01-28 at 13:53 -0500, Casey Dahlin wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:26:01AM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 16:52:18 +0100, > > > > > > Kamil Dudka <kdudka@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >I have been always wondering why yum needs a special set of commands to > > > >manipulate groups of packages. What would be the downside of using > > > >just > > > >packages that install no files (a.k.a. meta-packages) instead of > > > >groups? > > > > > > Removing meta packages doesn't remove the dependencies. So you more > > > or less have the same problem. It is easy to install groups, but > > > tricky to remove them. > > > > I thought we'd been shipping remove-with-leaves by default for awhile now. > > It got renamed clean_requirements_on_remove when it was merged, and it > works. There were some tests around turning it on by default, but as > always the big problem is very few people nobody care a small amount > about an extra few K of packages left installed ... but everyone cares a > lot when yum removes things they didn't predict it would remove. > It's not obvious that Kamil wants that though or something more like > the opposite of "upgrade_requirements_on_install", to be used to remove > things on removal. Yes, clean_requirements_on_remove seems to work at first glance. I agree it is not something that should be done by default (neither Paludis does it by default). My point was that if you avoid having two kinds of nodes in the dependency graphs (packages and groups), you can save a lot of code and documentation. Another advantage of using meta-packages you forgot to mention is that they can be hierarchically nested, which is not the case of yum groups if I am not mistaken. Kamil -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
