Le mer, 26/05/2004 à 08:16 -0400, Jeff Spaleta a écrit :
On Wed, 26 May 2004 11:02:36 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot
<nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> wrote:
> Any setup that does not allow in-package hints, distro policy and local
> sysadmin overlay will f*-up one of these people.
Have you not been listening to seth?
yum can merge group definitions from multiple sources. I'm really not
convinced you NEED in package group tags, just like i don't think you
NEED in package recommend tags. You publish packages in a repo
And this is where you didn't listen to me.
All the world is not a yum repo.
Right now yum is an *optional* rpm overlay.
If you make yum mandatory for something as trivial as rpm classification
you kill a lot of rpm's interest.
How do you handle single-rpm publication on sf on your setup ? How do
you handle rpm -Uvh
http://foo.org/bar.rpm ? How do you handle using a
CD of unindexed rpms as a yum source ?
Are you seriously suggesting someone needs all the repository plumbing
just to declare a package is a game, a gnome applet or whatever ? Why
not get all the metadata out of spec files while you're at this ?
The group tag is broken mostly because it is
1. mono-valuated
2. not standardised
3. interpreted as-is instead of getting through even the dumbest
filter/formatter
Frankly nothing I've read so far justifies moving this info out of the
spec files and making yum an hard requirement. Changing the
format/allowed values yes. Changing the way it is parsed/interpreted
yes. Moving it out ? No.
You have to give a lot more compelling arguments than "it works better
than foo known-broken-for-ages setup" to sell something that goes
against package=standalone software unit rule.
--
Nicolas Mailhot