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

Re: New Comps Groups

Le lundi 27 novembre 2006 à 15:33 -0500, Brian Pepple a écrit :
> On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 13:24 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > We already have a 'package search' interface for finding packages - is
> > listing 100 (or however many) python-* packages better than this? In
> > what way? Are they not getting pulled in for dependencies when necessary?
> I'm in agreement with Bill on this.  Pretty much all the python-*
> packages should be pulled in as dependencies.  Am I missing something
> here?

It's pretty much impossible to autodetect missing comps entries unless
every package is systematically put in comps. No autochecking means low

Also if a group is too big it should be broken up in lighter
finer-grained ones IMHO. Choosing the right group is much less work than
writing the package description, and often more useful for users.

Nicolas Mailhot

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée

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