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

Re: How important is comps.xml to us these days? Which packages should be in comps.xml and which not?



Le lundi 22 septembre 2008 à 07:01 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis a écrit :
> On 21.09.2008 23:33, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Tim Lauridsen <tim.lauridsen <at> googlemail.com> writes:
> > [...]
> > IMHO, a much better approach would be to:
> > * throw out the hardcoded categories! We have that information in comps.xml, 
> > PackageKit should not try to duplicate it.

The PK argument used to be comps groups suck, are distro-specific, have
no equivalent on some distros, so people should drop comps and
contribute to pk hardcoded stuff instead.

NIH syndrom IMHO, replacing distro infra with something else, which pk
was not supposed to do. (also pk hardcoding makes no provision for
non-centralised group declaration)

> > * add tristate checkboxes next to the groups, like in Anaconda: by
default, 
> > they're in the gray state, unless you have all packages installed
(checked) or 
> > none (unchecked); 

Mostly, pk needs to learn optionals

> Strong +1 with one addition for us:
> 
> * Fedora and its package maintainers need to way better job making sure 
> that most if not all packages are properly listed in comps.xml -- 
> otherwise a good portion of our packages won't show up in any of the groups

Do not generalise, some Fedora groups do have clear comps policies
(though no one really wanted to approve those)

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée


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