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

Re: Comps/groups/tags-concepts [Was: FESCo Meeting Summary for 2008-10-29]

On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 08:58 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Nicolas Mailhot (nicolas mailhot laposte net) said: 
> > > That's solving a different problem the wrong way, which certainly
> > > seems better suited to a bit in the review request, or packagedb, etc.
> > 
> > The target is to automate review requests as much as possible not pile
> > up new manual checks. I don't ask this just for fun. I ask this because
> > I happen to do comps QA for my SIG every few months and manual checks
> > are not fun at all.
> How is packagedb or bugzilla not automatable? We have programmatic interfaces
> to both.
> All I'm saying is that changing the user-visible behavior in order
> to implement a specific QA method for comps is putting the cart
> before the horse.

 There is a visible flag for groups┬╣. So we could have a /dev/null group
without it being directly user visible.
 However that'll add roughly 874K to comps. (65K compressed), then
yum/etc. has to parse it all out whenever we need group info. and the
"all packagenames need to be in at least one group" doesn't strike me as
a very good rule, anyway.

┬╣ yum-groups-manager --id /dev/null --not-user-visible yum

James Antill <james antill redhat com>
Red Hat

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

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