meta packages will be good. task-c-devel task-c++-devel task-kde-minimal task-kde task-gnome task-gnome-minimal etc..... On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Le Lun 12 janvier 2009 15:02, Jonathan Underwood a écrit : > >> 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. > > If you look at the comps groups of past releases, you'll see that > creating groups with half a dozen packages inside has been done > before, and was a common case when comps was introduced. The > distribution has massively grown without our comps layout following, > probably because no one was perceived to be in chargo of comps those > past years. > >> 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. > > There was supposed to be a session on comps future at FUDCON, I hope > its results will be posted on the list soon. > > Regards, > > -- > Nicolas Mailhot > > -- > Fedora-packaging mailing list > Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging > -- ------------ Itamar Reis Peixoto e-mail/msn: itamar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx sip: itamar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx skype: itamarjp icq: 81053601 +55 11 4063 5033 +55 34 3221 8599 -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
