How important is comps.xml to us these days? Which packages should be in comps.xml and which not?
Thorsten Leemhuis
fedora at leemhuis.info
Mon Sep 22 05:01:52 UTC 2008
On 21.09.2008 23:33, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Tim Lauridsen <tim.lauridsen <at> googlemail.com> writes:
> [...]
> IMHO, a much better approach would be to:
> * throw out the hardcoded categories! We have that information in comps.xml,
> PackageKit should not try to duplicate it.
> * display the comps.xml groups instead of the hardcoded categories and
> * add tristate checkboxes next to the groups, like in Anaconda: by default,
> they're in the gray state, unless you have all packages installed (checked) or
> none (unchecked); they can be checked or unchecked, which is equivalent to a
> groupinstall or groupremove, but the only way to get them into the gray state
> is to individually install or remove packages from the group (using the list
> view on the right).
Strong +1 with one addition for us:
* Fedora and its package maintainers need to way better job making sure
that most if not all packages are properly listed in comps.xml --
otherwise a good portion of our packages won't show up in any of the groups
CU
knurd
More information about the devel
mailing list