Dne 14.7.2015 v 19:05 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): > 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 can't say this document is not confusing. But at least 3 points from the "cons" section of metapackages could be removed IMO. > >>> 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? How long are comps in Fedora? You can call it educational problem, but this is just hiding of the problem IMO. > >>> 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... Definitely, this should be first step anyway. Looking into comps, here is list of candidates: anaconda-tools base-x eclipse freeipa-server haproxy java mingw32 mongodb mysql ocaml ruby rubyonrails smb-server tomcat vagrant Vít -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
