Re: New Comps Groups
Mon, 27 Nov 2006 13:52:06 -0800
On 11/27/06, Bill Nottingham <notting@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Christopher Stone (chris.stone@xxxxxxxxx) said:
> >Why, out of curiosity? In what cases are these something that a user
> >wants to explicitly wade through 100 listings for?
> I do not understand this question? Is it somehow better to wade
> through 1000s of packages to find something instead? Please rephrase
> your question to be more specific.
We already have a 'package search' interface for finding packages - is
listing 100 (or however many) python-* packages better than this? In
what way? Are they not getting pulled in for dependencies when necessary?
Basically, what's the use case for when a user would want to scroll through
all of python-* or perl-* looking for a package?
When the user is a developer, and that developer want to see what
python/perl modules are available to her.
If you ask what good it provides, then I have to ask what harm would
it cause? If there was a "Perl Develoment" group added to the
Development comps category how would that make things more difficult
for users? A user isn't going to be looking in the development part
of comps unless she is a developer, or clicked there by accident.
If it makes everyone happy, I can not add a perl or python development
group, but I dont see any harm in doing so.
fedora-extras-list mailing list