Dne 14.7.2015 v 19:05 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 15:53:49 +0200
Vít Ondruch <vondruch(a)redhat.com> wrote:
...snip...
>> * The comps.xml groups also provide grouping for
>> logically-connected packages that do not map to weak dependencies
>> well. (For example: an "astronomy" group could pull in numerous
>> scientific packages related to astronomy)
> We can get back to metapackages, which are still used in Fedora in
> various forms anyway.
Metapackages have a lot of downsides too, only a few parts of which are
made better by weak dependencies.
See:
http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/YumGroupsOverview
I can't say this document is not confusing. But at least 3 points from
the "cons" section of metapackages could be removed IMO.
>> I don't think there's any sense in removing comps.xml entirely,
> The problem with comps is that (IMO), it are not widely understand
> what are they good for, how to manage them, how to change them etc,
> while the package dependencies are quite well understood.
So it's an education problem?
How long are comps in Fedora? You can call it educational problem, but
this is just hiding of the problem IMO.
>> though
>> I'll be the first to say that it would be great if someone went
>> through and cleaned it up a bit. There's a lot of old cruft around.
> Sure, the first step is trimming down. For example, the rubyonrails
> group could be removed and replaced by appropriate Suggests in
> rubygem-rails (as soon as DNF supports the appropriate options [1]
> though).
I suspect there may be lots of other cases too...
Definitely, this should be first step anyway. Looking into comps, here
is list of candidates:
anaconda-tools
base-x
eclipse
freeipa-server
haproxy
java
mingw32
mongodb
mysql
ocaml
ruby
rubyonrails
smb-server
tomcat
vagrant
Vít