http://fedoraproject.org/extras/4/i386/repodata/

[Jeff Spaleta]

On 7/14/05, Matthew Miller <mattdm at mattdm.org> wrote:
> And hmmm, so, I guess to my surprise I find myself arguing for making more
> use of the Group tag after all -- earlier, I'd suggested reducing the
> accepted values to "Core" and "Extras".....

This is where your head explodes... because as soon as you convince
yourself to use the Group tag one way... you'll start arguing to use
it the other way when you look at the categorical needs from another
prespective.  Your change of opinion illustrates  another reason why
this information needs to be pulled out of the spec tags and into a
seperate edittable file(s), so as state-of-the-art opinion
changes...the editorial information associated with grouping can occur
in parallel with package building.. instead of being bound up in the
package building process.  With a comps appropriate you can experiment
with both component styled groupings and categorical groupings without
needing to rebuild packages as categorization schemes evolve.  All
groupings paradigms are "fuzzy" and more volatile in nature.  The rpm
header should avoid fuzzy information to avoid problems associated
with constantly re-building as new group definitions are defined.

Personally I think having multiple alternative comps files is
something to look at. One comps file that organizes packages via topic
(ie an Editors group). One comps file that organizes via functional
components (ie XFCE group)

And of course you want to make a hard limit assoicated with the size
of any one group definition to make it easy for people producing
Fedora Extras mediaset to be able to dump self-consistent groupings
onto a single piece of media if at all possible. Having a single group
that spans more than a cdrom's worth of data... complicates matters
when using mediasets.


-jef