2009/1/12 Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > > > Le Lun 12 janvier 2009 14:49, Jonathan Underwood a écrit : > >> My perception (which may be incorrect) is that the general use case >> for meta packages is to simplify the installation of a group of >> subpackages of one package. Whereas the use case for comps groups >> seems presently more targeted towards installation of a larger set of >> packages which are often not subpackages. > > Just because a comps group can easily handle packages from different > origin does not mean you should not use it for subpackages generated > from the same srpm. Sure, agreed. A key difference though is that other packages can't Require a comps group, but they can Require a metapackage. I can see why that could be considered bad practice. Also, using comps groups for the metapackage use case I outlined would lead to many more compsgroups, themselves much smaller than the presently existing comps groups. Perhaps we need another concept - collections and groups, where collections is roughly what we currently call comps groups (large package sets with a big overall functionality payload like a desktop environment etc) and comps groups which are primarily for pulling in a series of subpackages. This would lose the ability for a metapackge to be Required now. But perhaps requiring a metapackage is bad practice anyway. J. -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
