[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?

On 22.09.2008 08:49, Alex Lancaster wrote:
"TL" == Thorsten Leemhuis  writes:

TL> 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.  * display the comps.xml groups
instead of the hardcoded categories and * 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); they can be checked or unchecked, which is
equivalent to a groupinstall or groupremove, but the only way to
get them into the gray state is to individually install or remove
packages from the group (using the list view on the right).

TL> Strong +1 with one addition for us:

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

Ideally this would be done either as a mandatory part of the original
CVS import request (a field could be added, with an opt-out provision
if really not appropriate for comps), or added interactively by the
maintainer via PackageDB as I suggested in the feature request here:

Hmmmm. How much does the pkgdb know about the binary packages that get build from the source packages? Not much afaics, as the pkgdb mainly (only?) works with the (source) packages and not the ones that get build from it -- but in a proper comps.xml we need to list the binary packages, as a user might want to select the packages (rpms) foo or bar that both might get build from the package (srpm) foobar.

Having to manually update the comps.xml file for multiple releases is
painful, error-prone and probably why most package maintainers ignore
it, especially since it is not enforced in package reviews.



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