Le lundi 27 novembre 2006 à 15:58 -0500, Jeremy Katz a écrit : > 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] But the entire point is unless packages show up in comps, we have no idea if they're missing because they should not be exposed or because someone forgot to think about it. explicit "this package is in a group most users don't care about" is very different from "this package is not in any group, so probably users do not need to see it" -- Nicolas Mailhot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
