On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 21:52 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Le lundi 27 novembre 2006 à 15:33 -0500, Brian Pepple a écrit : > > On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 13:24 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > > We already have a 'package search' interface for finding packages - is > > > listing 100 (or however many) python-* packages better than this? In > > > what way? Are they not getting pulled in for dependencies when necessary? > > > > I'm in agreement with Bill on this. Pretty much all the python-* > > packages should be pulled in as dependencies. Am I missing something > > here? > > It's pretty much impossible to autodetect missing comps entries unless > every package is systematically put in comps. No autochecking means low > QA. But the entire point is that everything _SHOULDN'T_ be there. If so, then it's no better than a list[1] > Also if a group is too big it should be broken up in lighter > finer-grained ones IMHO. Choosing the right group is much less work than > writing the package description, and often more useful for users. And when a user now has to go through 100 groups to find the one they want? Jeremy [1] Grouping is somewhat arbitrary by nature and different people will have different ideas on how packages should be grouped. By your argument, I could just as well make the categories letters of the alphabet and group based on the first letter of the package name. But that *doesn't* provide anything useful for users. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
