http://fedoraproject.org/extras/4/i386/repodata/
Chris Ricker
kaboom at oobleck.net
Fri Jul 15 13:06:37 UTC 2005
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> 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.
You can get both approaches simply by including the "subgroups" in the
main groups and using uservisible as appropriate.
Something like:
<group>
<id>web-server-tools</id>
<uservisible>false</uservisible>
<packagelist>
<packagereq type="optional">awstats</package>
<packagereq type="optional">apachetop</package>
</packagelist>
</group>
<group>
<id>web-server</id>
<uservisible>true</uservisible>
<grouplist>
<groupreg>web-server-tools</groupreq>
</grouplist>
<packagelist>
<packagereq type="optional">lighttpd</packagereq>
<packagereq type="optional">thttpd</packagereq>
</packagelist>
</group>
should do the right thing
later,
chris
More information about the fedora-extras-list
mailing list