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

[Eric R. Meyers]

On Friday 15 July 2005 02:15, Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

I'm not going to disagree with you.  This is a discussion.  I was thinking 
purely from the perspective of the user wanting a web-server, versus the user 
wanting an addon to a webserver.  The more we mix the fuzzier the group will 
be.  It was an example.

Eric
-- 
Eric R. Meyers
Systems Engineer
GPG: 0x83CE80A3
http://users.adelphia.net/~ermeyers
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20050715/4ec8dbb5/attachment.sig>