How important is comps.xml to us these days? Which packages should be in comps.xml and which not?

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le mardi 23 septembre 2008 à 17:46 +0100, Richard Hughes a écrit :
> On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 16:30 +0000, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Richard Hughes <hughsient <at> gmail.com> writes:
> > > You think we NEED a "KDE Software Development group". PackageKit is not
> > > designed for you. Can you explain how having fine grained groups would
> > > help people like: http://www.packagekit.org/pk-profiles.html ?
> > 
> > Well, at least the med student could have a use for a "medical applications" 
> > group (which I'm aware does not currently exist, but that's not PackageKit's 
> > problem ;-) )
> 
> A simple collection (one package) would solve that need, rather than a
> whole group of packages that she wouldn't know what any of them did.

Users like simple jumbo mono-package solutions, but they're not
maintenable in the real world (and are usually a licensing trap).

Comps complexity and number of packages/groups have not evolvded from a
wish to make users or comps writers life difficult, but from the need to
present lots of granular packages (engineering, maintainership and legal
requirement) to people with lots of different interests (many targetted
groups)

It's always easy to present one-shot specialized solutions. The
difficulty is scaling because separate maintenance of specialized
overlapping package collections is not efficient).

When you refuse to look at scaling problems you're missing the core of
the problem.

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une partie de message
	=?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20080923/4408d798/attachment.bin