Le jeudi 18 novembre 2010 07:20:37, andre999 a écrit : > > - another simple way could be to group by source rpm. It won't always work, > > but that can be a first step, to experiment with. > > - task meta-packages can be another solution > > - we may have a look at what a package provides and group together packages > > whose names are close and which provide the same thing (eg. all packages > > which provide "openoffice.org-l10n" grouped together) > > > Excellent points. Which gives me an idea how to accomplish folding, > without changing the internals of the rpms : > First, note that very few if any package names contain ":". > So to fold packages associated with package "foo", on the line of "foo", > we could name the associated packages "foo:suba", "foo:subb", etc, > beginning with the name of the primary package + ":". > To fold associated packages on a subsequent line (as would be useful for > localisation packages, for example), we would create a meta-package > "foo:subc". Seeing that it is a meta package, the packages under it > would be folded into a line *under* "foo". And expanding the > meta-package line would show all contained packages. > Other meta packages (without ":" in the name) would be similarly > expandable. The only difference being that they would not be associated > with another group of packages. > This approach has the advantage of leaving the internals of rpm > unchanged for this purpose. > One just adds ":" to the name of associated packages, and creates some > grouping meta-packages. > Actually I'm assuming that there is a means of readily identifying a > meta-package other than "task" in the name. Correct me if I'm wrong. > > Another advantage is it lets users more readily see the packages > contained in a meta-package. And in installing, potentially allows > deselecting a package contained in a meta-package to be installed. > (Yes, I know, a meta-package only refers to other packages, not > containing them.)
I've got some difficulty to visualize the packages hierarchy in this proposal. Can you give an example ? However I'd rather experiment first approaches based on existing data, like src.rpm, provides, existing package names and maybe creating some meta-packages if needed, and only if this fails envision something with a broader impact. > > Another problem you mentioned is how to define what an "application" is. We > > could use some help on this subject too :) > > > That is definitely tricky. It should probably be more than just GUI. > It might be simpler to just rely on folding ? (What is specifically > folded with what will be ultimately decided by the packager.) At the very least we have to put apart libs, locales... > > You can have a look at this wiki page (on our new Redmine project, thanks > > to Jehane for setting it up) which is dedicated to this matter : > > http://mageia-app-db.tuxette.fr/projects/mageia-app-db/wiki/Applications > > > So I imagine my thoughts go under "crazy ideas" ? ;) > (I like how the wiki page is set up.) There's already a page for package folding, linked from the Applications wiki page : http://mageia-app-db.tuxette.fr/projects/mageia-app-db/wiki/GroupSimilarPackages You can put everything there I think. Samuel
