On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 11:57 -0500, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 14:21 +0100, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> > On Sun, 2006-01-22 at 10:28 -0500, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> > > Some of us, are working with the maintainers to identify which
> > > packages are not incorporated into the comps grouping structure
> >
> > Maybe an RPM package's group should match the (default/primary) comps
> > group of that package. That way we theoretically could have a
> > "comps-merge" tool which would update comps with new packages,
> > automatically sorting them into their respective default/primary groups
> > (perhaps marking them as "fuzzy" just to overstretch the gettext
> > analogy ;-).
>
> This then implies that all packages are listed in comps which is just
Last time I looked (admittedly quite a while ago), comps also contained
hidden groups, I guess this would be where libraries should go to by
default.
> not the case. Many packages are just libraries and thus get pulled in
> only as dependencies and aren't the sort of thing that should be user
> visible. Additionally, one of the primary points of the grouping in
> comps was to make it so that changes could be made without requiring a
> rebuild of the package.
That hypothetical comps-merge tool should certainly only add new
packages, not shove around existing ones.
Nils
--
Nils Philippsen / Red Hat / nphilipp@xxxxxxxxxx
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- B. Franklin, 1759
PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
