Re: rpm groups and fedora: a modest proposal

[David Kewley <kewley cns caltech edu>]

Brad Smith wrote on Tuesday 25 May 2004 18:49:
> I concede the point about utils like anaconda being geared more toward
> using comps.xml than the Group field and agree that we should settle on
> one rather than both. But I'm not convinced that it's better to keep all
> this information in one file (even one file per repo) instead of in the
> packages themselves. What, other than current development trends,
> warrants the use of a file that would need to be updated every time a
> package got added to a repository if reaching an accepted standard for
> Group field values would suffice?

I collect packages from various places, make a yumgroups.xml (yum's analog 
to comps.xml), and publish my own package groups in my local custom yum 
repository.  I'd have to rebuild all the collected packages with my own 
Group: header if install-group membership was keyed off of that header 
instead of yumgroups.xml.

Possibly after a careful rethinking of the problem, it would become clear 
that a Group: header suffices, but right now it's awfully handy to have an 
easily-edited yumgroups.xml.

David