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

Re: Agenda for the 2009-05-26 Packaging Committee meeting



On Tue, 2009-05-26 at 22:34 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 09:29:31PM +0000, Matej Cepl wrote:
> > Hans de Goede, Tue, 26 May 2009 13:15:23 +0200:
> > > Can we please not remove the Group tag, it is actually quite usefull.
> > > What we need to remove / loose is comps. Having all this info in a
> > > centralized database is stupid. The spec files should tell which
> > > group(s) the package belongs in. So that when one adds a new package,
> > > this gets done right more or less automatically (and is part of the
> > > review).
> > 
> > Hear, hear!!! And add Suggests:/Recommends: (which is the other part of 
> > comps).
> > 
> > +1000
> 
> +1001 ...
> 
> I've just been involved with submitting a package for febootstrap to
> Debian [yay, build Fedora images on Debian!], and I'm reminded yet
> again what a good idea 'Suggests/Recommends' are.  I can Suggest
> packages like 'filelight' for measuring the effects of image
> minimization, without making it a proper dependency and consequently
> pulling in the whole of KDE.

Indeed - Mandriva's had Suggests for a year or two now, and I found it
extremely convenient in several packages I maintain(ed). Isn't it going
into upstream RPM soon, or in there already? I had this idea that it
was.

We'd likely still need comps in some form, though. MDV has Suggests and
enforces Group tags, and still uses something similar to comps for
fine-tuning ISO builds.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net


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