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

Re: No dynamic groups in PackageKit

On 23.09.2008 19:58, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 19:52 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Just wondering and making sure I get this right: What exactly do you mean by "changed" in the latter sentence?

(1) just use the same ids and description and list only the packages from RPM Fusion in the rpmfusion comps.xml files

(2) import the whole comps.xml stuff from Fedora, keep it in sync and add the RPM Fusion packages

I suppose you meant (1)?

I think I misspoke on the translation side, that likely doesn't matter.
James gave a better description of what happened.
I'd recommend using 1 if you want your packages to show up along side
other Fedora packages in the same groups.

I'll give it a try in RPM Fusions devel branch; we can easily switch it back later if needed.

I think this doesn't solve an issue where you add the Livna repo at
install time in anaconda, as there may still be a bug that the group
memberships don't get re-evaluated when a new repo is added, so the
livna group members may not be added to the install list.  That's just a
bug though and could probably be fixed.


Was closed as WONTFIX :-/ So I suppose that bug is still around in anaconda. We really need to get this fixed because otherwise it's impossible to get the rpmfusion-release package automatically installed for people that enable RPM Fusion during install with anaconda. Which makes the whole idea to enable a repo during install mostly useless IMHO....

That brings me to a different question: what's the long term solution for package selection in anaconda? It's a bit odd to offer the old pirut frontend in anaconda during install and having a frontend for PK later on the installed system that looks quite different...

P.S.: Why the heck hasn't anybody told me the above when I asked for a better way to fix the mess livna created a few months ago?
I'd have to dig through IRC logs, but I'm pretty sure I stated exactly
what you did in #1, along the lines of "either use the same
name/description as Fedora proper does, or use your own group names".
It seemed to me that livna chose the latter and the problem was

Someone else IIRC suggested that renaming was the better way to solve the problem, and thus that was what I did. But whatever, that is history now or will be soon, so it doesn't matter much anymore (and I don't care).


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