Richard Hughes <hughsient <at> gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 11:20 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > What's your definition of "us"? Showing the users one set of package
> > information during install, and then a completely different one after
> > install is not suitable either.
>
> Surely with a live CD we don't show the user any sets of groups at all?
But that's not the only way to install Fedora.
> > Is "not suitable for us" supposed to mean that PK is trying to hard to
> > be generic across the distros so that we lose the classifications and
> > groupings we work on in Fedora, so that PK is not suitable for Fedora?
>
> No, we keep the groupings as the yum backend supports them as part of
> "collections". I'm just not showing the giant tree of arbitrary
> classifications as the main point of user interaction.
Those "arbitrary" classifications are what Fedora maintainers work hard to keep
up to date and complete, unlike your incomplete hardcoded classifications in
PackageKit which are truly arbitrary and do not reflect how Fedora intends to
categorize its packages.
It doesn't make sense to have distro-independent categories of packages,
categories are defined by the distributions, they should be read from the
appropriate distro-specific classification by the PackageKit backend. For
example, does it make sense to show a KDE resp. GNOME category for a
distribution which doesn't even ship KDE resp. GNOME, maybe with a single
package (think of a GNOME distribution shipping e.g. Amarok or K3b as its only
KDE app)? And distributions with more packages will necessarily have more
categories! Fedora has many packages, PackageKit's categories don't even come
close to covering all of them.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
