On 8 September 2012 14:29, Remco Rijnders <[email protected]> wrote: >> I'm writing about the current rpm group policy: >> http://wiki.mageia.org/en/RPM_groups_policy >> >> In this list, there are some groups that contain only a handful of >> packages while some others are in the hundreds. It sometimes makes it >> very hard to use rpmdrake (or other tools) to browse the packages. It is >> not a bug per se, but rather an interface issue, particularly with >> inexperienced users. >> >> My interest lies in particular in the Development/Other group. It is >> currently a mess, mixing up programming tools with libraries and >> compilers for the non-major programming languages. Among them, there are >> now 300 packages for OCaml-related packages. I propose we create a >> Development/OCaml group for them. >> I also noticed that despite our policy not having a Development/Tools >> rpm group, some packages started using it (I guess because Fedora and >> Suse have a Development/Tools group). I think this is a good idea and we >> could move there various tools currently in Development/Other like cvs, >> subversion (and all vcs), valgrind, make, autoconf, etc. >> >> If you agree, I will amend our >> http://wiki.mageia.org/en/RPM_groups_policy >> with these two changes >> and get in touch with the appropriate packagers/maintainers to do the >> group change (which is a trivial spec change). > > > Hi Malo, > > I am in agreement with your proposal above, but I think the RPM groups > policy need a wider overhaul. For examples, I miss categories for scheduling > and productivity, as well as a category for personal finances, etc. > > As these changes also mean an update to our rpmlint package, I think it is > best if someone drafts up a list of the needed changes and presents that in > an upcoming dev team meeting for sanctioning.
Yes it may be better. _Then_, we'll need to update http://svnweb.mageia.org/soft/rpmdrake/trunk/Rpmdrake/icon.pm?view=markup
