New groups in comps for F19

[Jan Zelený]

On 14. 3. 2013 at 04:58:51, Dan Mashal wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 4:56 AM, Jan Zelený <jzeleny at redhat.com> wrote:
> > On 14. 3. 2013 at 04:48:33, Dan Mashal wrote:
> >> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 1:46 AM, Jan Zelený <jzeleny at redhat.com> wrote:
> >> > Hi guys,
> >> > as per [1], I'd like to propose some patches for F19 comps. These
> >> > patches
> >> > are splitting group called Development Tools into several smaller
> >> > groups.
> >> > The purpose of this email is to find out if there is something
> >> > fundamentally wrong with the change (except for the fact that it is
> >> > change).
> >> > 
> >> > These are key points about the patch set:
> >> > 1. There should be only small visible impact to users. Currently the
> >> > only
> >> > tool that is commonly using comps is anaconda and that uses the
> >> > "Developer workstation" environment. This group will contain all groups
> >> > that were created by the split to ensure maximal similarity to the old
> >> > state of things.
> >> > 
> >> > 2. All in all, the Development Tools group needed a huge cleanup, as it
> >> > contained a lot of different tools and/or devel packages but many times
> >> > these were only fractions of development environments necessary for the
> >> > particular purpose. These tools are mostly still avaiable in other
> >> > groups, like C development, Electronic Lab, ...
> >> > 
> >> > 3. The current idea for Developer Tools group is to contain just tools
> >> > that
> >> > are common/usable for development of most programming languages
> >> > 
> >> > 4. This should bring only the "big picture change". No need to discuss
> >> > what
> >> > particular packages should be in which group. That can be tuned any
> >> > time
> >> > later.
> >> > 
> >> > 5. More groups targeted at specific areas should be created and/or
> >> > reviewed
> >> > soon-ish. Among them:
> >> > Perl Development
> >> > Python Development
> >> > Ruby Development
> >> > feel free to suggest more development-related areas that you would like
> >> > to
> >> > improve.
> >> > 
> >> > The goal of this effort is to start a process which would lead to more
> >> > usable comps, so users will be able (and more importantly encouraged)
> >> > to
> >> > simply use for example yum to install these environments. By that time,
> >> > these environments should be cleaned up, in case user wants to install
> >> > just specific type of devel env, not the entire "Developer Workstation"
> >> > 
> >> > [1]
> >> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_use_and_edit_comps.xml_for_packag
> >> > e_g
> >> > roups
> >> > 
> >> > Thanks
> >> > Jan
> >> > --
> >> > devel mailing list
> >> > devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
> >> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> >> 
> >> Please undo this change immediately and wait more than 2 days before
> >> you split such a massive group of important packages.
> > 
> > Dan,
> > thanks for your input. Did it break something for you? As I indicated
> > above, the split itself should have no effect for vast majority of users.
> > The only thing that might have some impact is the cleanup of packages.
> > However that impact will not be major, as many of these packages are in
> > different developer- focused groups anyway.
> > 
> > Thanks
> > Jan
> 
> I haven't been able to find out yet because my rawhide machine is
> broken but, intltool definitely needs to stay there.

Well, feel free to re-add it if you think that it is common tool that 
developers regularly use. I don't share that thought but I certainly welcome 
your input and I won't be angry at all if you put it back there.

> We already have too many groups.

I see your point. Yet, at the same time, the bigger problem I observe is that 
we have groups that either have way too broad scope or have misc optional 
packages that are borderline non-qualified to be in those groups. Such groups 
partially loose their purpose to make things more structured and lucid.

Thanks
Jan