Le jeudi 30 novembre 2006 à 13:45 -0500, Jesse Keating a écrit : > On Thursday 30 November 2006 12:29, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > I would say that apt and smart's UI would not suffer from a > > migration to comps provided that comps lists all the packages in the > > repository. > > Why do all packages have to be listed in comps? The grouping metadata can > list packages being in some groups, and then if a package isn't in any group, > the tool (apt/smart) could represent that as 'Ungrouped' or however you want > to phrase it. Why to you want to impose the policy of one user of this file (anaconda) on others ? Defining groups for anaconda use and lumping everything else in an anaconda-does-not-care limbo is not the answer. The answer is to categorise everything, and let apps define the filtering they want separately. -- 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
