On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 15:53:49 +0200 Vít Ondruch <vondruch@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: ...snip... > > * The comps.xml groups also provide grouping for > > logically-connected packages that do not map to weak dependencies > > well. (For example: an "astronomy" group could pull in numerous > > scientific packages related to astronomy) > > We can get back to metapackages, which are still used in Fedora in > various forms anyway. Metapackages have a lot of downsides too, only a few parts of which are made better by weak dependencies. See: http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/YumGroupsOverview > > I don't think there's any sense in removing comps.xml entirely, > > The problem with comps is that (IMO), it are not widely understand > what are they good for, how to manage them, how to change them etc, > while the package dependencies are quite well understood. So it's an education problem? > > though > > I'll be the first to say that it would be great if someone went > > through and cleaned it up a bit. There's a lot of old cruft around. > > Sure, the first step is trimming down. For example, the rubyonrails > group could be removed and replaced by appropriate Suggests in > rubygem-rails (as soon as DNF supports the appropriate options [1] > though). I suspect there may be lots of other cases too... kevin
Attachment:
pgpfhivVGUiFp.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
