On 23.09.2008 09:16, Tim Lauridsen wrote:
I think this discussion is getting a little heated and it is not the
most constructive, if you want something to change IMHO.
I agree in there is some issues with the static groups currently in pk.
so i have made this proposal on the upstream packagekit list.
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/packagekit/2008-September/003675.html
To solve some of the issues being discussed in this thread.
As the one that started this thread (which I didn wasn't meant to become
a PK-bashing (sub-)thread) let me say: thx Tim for working towards a
better solution.
BTW, not sure if it matters, but might be a good time to bring it up:
Livna/RPM Fusion in the past tried to put its packages into the same
groups as Fedora did. That somehow broke or confused groupinstall in yum
iirc (never looked into the details; just heard it from skvidal and
others); thus instead of trying to extend the groups Fedora defined we
now define our own -- e.g. the groups have a different "groupid" and a
string like "(RPM Fusion free)" got added to each of the groups
descriptions(¹).
That IMHO might have been fine as a short term solution. But IMHO it's
the wrong thing to do (especially should PK use dynamic groups), as the
user normally should not have to care at all where a package comes from.
Not sure what's the best way to fix this.
Cu
knurd
(¹) for the curious: comps.xml files for RPM Fusion can be found at
http://cvs.rpmfusion.org/viewvc/comps/comps-f10.xml.in?root=free&view=markup
http://cvs.rpmfusion.org/viewvc/comps/comps-f10.xml.in?root=nonfree&view=markup
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
