erbatiChristian Iseli wrote:
Hi folks, Here comes this week's report. I've tried to further trim the list of missing packages in comps.xml by looking at owners.list. Packages with this RE (binding|library|module|utilit) in their short description are excluded.
I'm not a huge fan of this exclusion mechanism, it is approximate and yields lots of false positives (both ways). As a result, people are confused as to what should or should not go into the comps file, and the overall value of comps is reduced. Worse, people will start writing artifical package descriptions to make sure they include one of those words.
Also, the wiki states that the comps file should only include packages that make sense for a user to include, i.e. a graphical application. Yet the comps file seems to include a lot more than that already, command-line-only utilities, devel packages.
There needs to be at least a robust way to exclude packages from the comps categorization, whether that's an extra entry in the owner file, or preferrably an actual file checked into the module directory ?
-denis -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
