On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 01:35:59AM +1100, David Timms wrote: > Hi (again), > > It seems the preferred solution is to use comps groups (yet I don't > think that they can solve the needing i386 libs on x86_64 problem). I don't think so. A meta-package looks like a right technical solution to me for your issue. > - It has been suggested that if such a group was committed, "a line > would form to revert the change". Agreed. A comps group for the dependencies of a proprietary (or free) software is not right in my opinion. > - It suggests that Fedora somehow supports the external software. This > might allow fedora users to expect solutions to problems in the external > software. This is really a weak argument. Also there are packages in fedora, for example libflashsupport to support proprietary software. So the argument about not helping with proprietary software is moot. As long as it is free software it is right. However I think that meta-packages that are not associated with a given package should be discouraged in fedora. Some specific meta-package only can be accepted, for example 'basesystem' is somehow a meta package, also meta-packages for hardware support when one don't know which precise driver should be used seem right to me. But random meta-packages are not acceptable in my opinion. This opens the door for arbitrary convenience packages, I don't think this is something we want. After that I will want a meta-package to be able to get the dependencies of a numerical model, maybe? -- Pat -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
