[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: New Comps Groups

Subject: Re: New Comps Groups
From: "Nicolas Mailhot"
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 18:13:06 +0100 CET
Le Ven 1 dÃcembre 2006 17:17, Jeremy Katz a Ãcrit :
> On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 17:03 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>> Le Ven 1 dÃcembre 2006 16:36, Jeremy Katz a Ãcrit :
>> > But yes, different interfaces want different metadata.  The crux of my
>> > argument is that "comps.xml" isn't the metadata for that purpose.
>> And the crux of our argument is we don't want to maintain a gazillon of
>> separate metadata files.
> You'd rather instead maintain one file with a gazillion sections?
> There's no real difference,

You'd be right if the gazillon sections were disjoint. Since they're not
(a gnome app stays a gnome app no matter what comps app looks at it),
having completely separate files entails considerable synchronisation
costs (we didn't manage to have group descriptions match between FC and FE
for a long time, and that was *two* comps only)

> except in the case where it's one file that's huge,

Don't be ridiculous, that's a text file, it'll probably never weight more
than the ten biggest package changelogs concatenated.

> editing is harder,

For individual packagers that only need to tag their packages it will be
easier : just add a keyword list to their packages.

For the people who master all the black magic of current comps I don't
think it will be harder, but even if I'm wrong it does not matter because
1. they're not the general case
2. most of the complexity increase is linked to having a bigger base repo
and several release sets, which will happen whether you spread it over
many comps files or not.

> and it's more confusing to someone first going to add something.

Yep sure it's less confusing to modify a boatload of slightly different
files where app policy and package categorization are mingled.

Nicolas Mailhot

fedora-extras-list mailing list
[email protected]

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>