Proposal for new package group: Development:Formal Methods Tools

[Bill Nottingham]

John C. Peterson (jcp at eskimo.com) said: 
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 03:17:39PM +0800, Christopher Meng wrote:
> > ??? 2013-8-18 AM3:31???"John C. Peterson" <jcp at eskimo.com>?????????
> > >
> > >
> > > I would like to edit comps.xml to add a new package group for the tools
> > > that have already been packaged by the Formal Methods SIG.
> > 
> > I just want to know if Group tag is needed or not, I never add Group tag in
> > any specs of mine.
> 
> I was referring to the groups defined in comps.xml which is used by the
> installer during during the software selection phase of installation.
> 
> The legal values of group tags that go in rpm spec files are documented
> in /usr/share/doc/rpm-4.x.x.x/GROUPS
> 
> I guess it's apropos to call the larger picture here a "can of worms" of
> sorts, as these two groups do not agree.

Nothing of consequence (*) uses the RPM group tag any more, so I wouldn't
worry about that.

With respect to your particular definition of a comps group, you're creating
a large group with almost no default packages and a bunch of optional ones.

This sort of group definition is not the most useful, given that in the
installer (and with groupinstall) you'd only get the very small set of
packages (which may or may not be useful in isolation), and in other
post-install package tools, you'd be picking optional packages one at a
time.

How do you expect people to install these packages, and in what
combinations?

Bill

(*) I'm sure someone will mention something now