Proposal: Drop comps

Kevin Fenzi kevin at
Tue Jul 14 17:05:45 UTC 2015

On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 15:53:49 +0200
Vít Ondruch <vondruch at> wrote:


> >  * 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. 


> > 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? 

> >  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... 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the devel mailing list