Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
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"
Can't the package checking problem be solved by adding packages that are
deliberately not intended to be in comps either to a group that is
defined not to show up in the UI (that might need some extra work on the
schema and the tools though), or in a completely separate file from the
comps file that exists for the purpose of doing this checking?
Paul.
--
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
