http://fedoraproject.org/extras/4/i386/repodata/
Jeff Spaleta
jspaleta at gmail.com
Thu Jul 14 19:45:09 UTC 2005
On 7/14/05, Eric R. Meyers <ermeyers at adelphia.net> wrote:
> Gentlemen,
>
> Consensus is building.
>
> I don't care what the grouping views are called. We just need to agree, and we
> are. One of the major issues will be clarifying (defuzzying) the groups, and
> I'll use the group "web-server" as an example. It's a generic name for
> Typal/Component group. It should be made pure to clarify (defuzzify) its
> grouping purpose. So packages like 'apachetop' and 'awstats' will need to be
> moved out into another Typal/Component group called web-server-accessories.
Uhm.. why exactly do i need a web-server-accessories group? Why can't
those packages be optional members of the web server group? If you
continue this trend of sub-divding groups so that accessory or
optional packages are in their own accessory group... you'll end up
with hundreds of visible groups as you subdivide group definitions.
This is not a good solution.
The comps definition makes room for "optional" packages in a group..
it makes perfect sense to me to place accessories into existing groups
and mark them as "optional" so that tools can expose those packages
accordingly.
-jef
More information about the fedora-extras-list
mailing list