On Mon, 2018-09-24 at 00:57 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Neal Gompa wrote:
> This is where I think that transforming comps into metapackages would
> probably solve the remaining issues we have with the current workflow.
I think metapackages could work for the distro composes, where ACL
enforcement is wanted (so we would remove @group usage from kickstarts
entirely and use the metapackages instead), but not for self-serve
categorization of the average niche leaf package. The metapackage would not
be open to all packagers (at most to provenpackagers), so it would just mean
you would have to send a pull request to the metapackage rather than to
fedora-comps. That would not really make things easier. You could use
Supplements (reverse weak dependencies) to self-serve-add your package to
the metapackage, but I am not sure that we would want such widespread use of
Supplements.
Yeah, I think now we're extending the discussion a bit, any 'solution'
really needs to address this use case problem. We're doing multiple
really quite different things with package groups, and a significant
part of the current awkwardness is that they're not really separable as
they should be.
I think some kind of easy, self-service, fairly sloppily'-controlled'
system is fine for the "let's let package managers give some sort of
categorized browsing catalog" use case. It's certainly not fine for the
"let's build the distribution" use case. It would be kinda nuts for the
distro to be built out of categories that any packager can tag any
package into at any time, for instance.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net