[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: rpm groups and fedora: a modest proposal

On Tue, 25 May 2004, David Kewley wrote:

> 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.


I do the same thing as I am sure do others.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]