On Tuesday 28 November 2006 09:59, Paul Howarth wrote: > > Only if you assume that it is a good idea to list all packages in comps. > > Some people disagree with that. > > The only underlying objection I recall seeing is that adding all > packages to comps presents too many choices to users, and that problem > doesn't happen if hidden groups are used; did I miss some other reason? Whats the point of adding it to comps if you're making it hidden? From my point of view, Comps is a file that tells the installer and yum what to expose to the user as installable options. Just adding all the packages to comps to be visible isn't the right thing, but if you're concerned about the packages being visible (which would be the point of putting them in comps), why add them to a hidden section? You're going to still have to answer the question at review time, should this be exposed to end users as an installable choice within a group? Whether the package gets added to a hidden group, or whether the package doesn't get added at all seems pretty irrelevant. Adding it into comps into a hidden view just is one more complicated step, makes comps generation time that much longer, and provides no improvement to end users. I'm also using comps as a method to determine what packages to gather up and put onto a CD. It really doesn't make sense to put packages on CDs that aren't installable options, or aren't deps of installable options. My tool reads comps for packages, then depsolves, and then spins CDs based on the results. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora
Attachment:
pgpAoINHvFaW2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
