[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?



Richard Hughes <hughsient <at> gmail.com> writes:
> No. PK groups are made up _from_ the comps groups. There are just an
> order of magnitude less options, and it's a flat list rather than a
> tree. Comps supports optional, mandatory, suggested and the sort of
> power user stuff that I just don't want to support in PackageKit.

So you want PackageKit to be useless for power users? Then what should power 
users use?

> For me to "clean up the groups" would be to rip out all optional groups,
> rip out most of the obscure categories and add lots of packages with
> lots of extra deps. I'm sure that's not what you want me to do with
> comps at all.

The optional groups all exist for a reason, they shouldn't be removed, but they 
also shouldn't be hidden (which for an end user is essentially the same as 
removing).

> If you want to actually help with this stuff, can I suggest you join the
> PackageKit mailing list and discuss there? Fedora isn't the only
> consumer of PackageKit, and I'm keen on working upstream on ideas and
> policies with other distros rather than just defending decisions made
> upstream that affect fedora.

Then (i.e. if there's disagreement between distributions on how to handle this) 
there needs to be a way for a distribution to configure this, and the 
configuration in Fedora should reflect Fedora's wishes, not those of other 
distributions.

        Kevin Kofler


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