>>>>> "TL" == Thorsten Leemhuis writes: TL> On 21.09.2008 23:33, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> Tim Lauridsen <tim.lauridsen <at> googlemail.com> writes: [...] >> IMHO, a much better approach would be to: * throw out the hardcoded >> categories! We have that information in comps.xml, PackageKit >> should not try to duplicate it. * display the comps.xml groups >> instead of the hardcoded categories and * add tristate checkboxes >> next to the groups, like in Anaconda: by default, they're in the >> gray state, unless you have all packages installed (checked) or >> none (unchecked); they can be checked or unchecked, which is >> equivalent to a groupinstall or groupremove, but the only way to >> get them into the gray state is to individually install or remove >> packages from the group (using the list view on the right). TL> Strong +1 with one addition for us: TL> * Fedora and its package maintainers need to way better job making TL> sure that most if not all packages are properly listed in TL> comps.xml -- otherwise a good portion of our packages won't show TL> up in any of the groups Ideally this would be done either as a mandatory part of the original CVS import request (a field could be added, with an opt-out provision if really not appropriate for comps), or added interactively by the maintainer via PackageDB as I suggested in the feature request here: https://fedorahosted.org/packagedb/ticket/78#comment:1 Having to manually update the comps.xml file for multiple releases is painful, error-prone and probably why most package maintainers ignore it, especially since it is not enforced in package reviews. Alex -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
