On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 21:43 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
No. PK groups are made up _from_ the comps groups. There are just an
order of magnitude less options, and it's a flat list rather than a
tree. Comps supports optional, mandatory, suggested and the sort of
power user stuff that I just don't want to support in PackageKit.
Well that's just too damn bad. You're making things /worse/ by having a
different view of things post-install than you had during install. This
was one of the /best/ things about pirut is that you got the same
familiar UI, whether that UI was good or bad didn't matter, it was
the /same/ and /consistent/.
For me to "clean up the groups" would be to rip out all optional groups,
rip out most of the obscure categories and add lots of packages with
lots of extra deps. I'm sure that's not what you want me to do with
comps at all.
Well it'd certainly be a starting point for a conversation, which is
much better than decisions being made about our distribution and what
our users see in our distribution discussed and made somewhere that
was /not/ our distribution. Hurting, not helping.
If you want to actually help with this stuff, can I suggest you join
the
PackageKit mailing list and discuss there? Fedora isn't the only
consumer of PackageKit, and I'm keen on working upstream on ideas and
policies with other distros rather than just defending decisions made
upstream that affect fedora.
If I'd known that upstream was actively looking to destroy our package
classifications, rather than actually work with us to clean them up a
bit maybe I would have joined the conversation. A heads up might have
been in order. I fear that any conversation now will just be too little
too late.
And just correcting you: this wasn't _my_ decision, this was the
result
of working with lots of other distros. Sarcasm doesn't help anybody.
Neither does letting other distributions make decisions about ours.
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca:
http://identi.ca/jkeating