Re: Package categorization and distribution construction

2012-01-27 Thread Toshio Kuratomi
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com wrote: Tom Callaway (tcall...@redhat.com) said: On 01/18/2012 09:30 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote: Later it was brought up that it may just be simpler to create a second file of metadata, similar to the comps file, that just

Re: Package categorization and distribution construction

2012-01-25 Thread James Antill
On Thu, 2012-01-19 at 08:54 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: Peter Robinson (pbrobin...@gmail.com) said: Great idea, I would also love to see a clear out of the packages that aren't core/part of particular categories. MTAs in minimal would be one that comes to mind but there's lots of other

Re: Package categorization and distribution construction

2012-01-25 Thread Bill Nottingham
James Antill (ja...@fedoraproject.org) said: . Doing install @core is actually smaller, and less packages than the aboveĀ² 8. Which makes me assume something is missing from @core. The kernel; it's brought in by anaconda for a minimal *install*, but not explicitly mentioned because it's not

Re: Package categorization and distribution construction

2012-01-20 Thread Richard W.M. Jones
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 11:48:38AM -0500, Przemek Klosowski wrote: On 01/19/2012 10:43 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: I wrote a little graphical tool called rpmdepsize (it's in Fedora) which may be useful. Unfortunately it only works with a single package, eg: rpmdepsize kernel

Re: Package categorization and distribution construction

2012-01-20 Thread Kevin Kofler
Bill Nottingham wrote: These could be separate groups, (i.e., XFCE's 'Office Suite' group may not have LibreOffice). So there would be the ability to customize that. Yes, that makes sense. Right now, if you enable Sound and Video, you get Totem forced in (and with it, plenty of GNOME

Re: Package categorization and distribution construction

2012-01-19 Thread Peter Robinson
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com wrote: Following up with notes from FUDCon. Bill Nottingham (nott...@redhat.com) said: == Distribution construction == For this, we will continue to use groups in comps. PRO: - Don't have to change any distribution tools

Re: Package categorization and distribution construction

2012-01-19 Thread Kevin Kofler
Bill Nottingham wrote: Opinions? What I would like to see is to have desktop application (but not desktop environment) groups like Sound and Video include different default packages depending on the chosen desktop environment: GNOME users probably prefer GTK+/GNOME packages, but KDE Plasma

Re: Package categorization and distribution construction

2012-01-19 Thread Bill Nottingham
Kevin Kofler (kevin.kof...@chello.at) said: Bill Nottingham wrote: Opinions? What I would like to see is to have desktop application (but not desktop environment) groups like Sound and Video include different default packages depending on the chosen desktop environment: GNOME users

Re: Package categorization and distribution construction

2012-01-19 Thread Bill Nottingham
Peter Robinson (pbrobin...@gmail.com) said: Great idea, I would also love to see a clear out of the packages that aren't core/part of particular categories. MTAs in minimal would be one that comes to mind but there's lots of other examples. Yeah, I'd like to clean this up. The sad thing is

Re: Package categorization and distribution construction

2012-01-19 Thread Daniel J Walsh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 01/19/2012 08:54 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote: Peter Robinson (pbrobin...@gmail.com) said: Great idea, I would also love to see a clear out of the packages that aren't core/part of particular categories. MTAs in minimal would be one that comes to

Re: Package categorization and distribution construction

2012-01-19 Thread Peter Robinson
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com wrote: Peter Robinson (pbrobin...@gmail.com) said: Great idea, I would also love to see a clear out of the packages that aren't core/part of particular categories. MTAs in minimal would be one that comes to mind but there's

Re: Package categorization and distribution construction

2012-01-19 Thread seth vidal
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:45:34 + Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote: kernel dracut util-linux systemd systemd-units initscripts yum selinux-policy-targeted policycoreutils If anyone wants to see the full tree for any of these: repoquery --requires --recursive

Re: Package categorization and distribution construction

2012-01-19 Thread Richard W.M. Jones
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 09:40:56AM -0500, Daniel J Walsh wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 01/19/2012 08:54 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote: Peter Robinson (pbrobin...@gmail.com) said: Great idea, I would also love to see a clear out of the packages that aren't core/part

Re: Package categorization and distribution construction

2012-01-19 Thread Przemek Klosowski
On 01/19/2012 10:43 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: I wrote a little graphical tool called rpmdepsize (it's in Fedora) which may be useful. Unfortunately it only works with a single package, eg: rpmdepsize kernel Interesting--but I tried it on my F15 box and it froze. I tried 'rpdepsize

Re: Package categorization and distribution construction

2012-01-19 Thread David Tardon
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 03:43:43PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 09:40:56AM -0500, Daniel J Walsh wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 01/19/2012 08:54 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote: Peter Robinson (pbrobin...@gmail.com) said: Great idea, I

Re: Package categorization and distribution construction

2012-01-18 Thread Bill Nottingham
Following up with notes from FUDCon. Bill Nottingham (nott...@redhat.com) said: == Distribution construction == For this, we will continue to use groups in comps. PRO: - Don't have to change any distribution tools - Don't have to change kickstarts CON that can be fixed: - Doesn't

Re: Package categorization and distribution construction

2012-01-18 Thread Tom Callaway
On 01/18/2012 09:30 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote: Later it was brought up that it may just be simpler to create a second file of metadata, similar to the comps file, that just contains lists of categorized packages. (i.e., #3 above.) Opinions? One of the ideas that we've been seriously

Re: Package categorization and distribution construction

2012-01-18 Thread Bill Nottingham
Tom Callaway (tcall...@redhat.com) said: On 01/18/2012 09:30 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote: Later it was brought up that it may just be simpler to create a second file of metadata, similar to the comps file, that just contains lists of categorized packages. (i.e., #3 above.) Opinions?

Re: Package categorization and distribution construction

2012-01-18 Thread Tom Callaway
On 01/18/2012 11:04 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote: The concern that was raised from infrastructure is that scouring package git for DOAP (or any other metadata files) might be prohibitive in cost to do regularly. PackageDB would be simpler, of course (maybe have git hooks that populate PackageDB

Package categorization and distribution construction

2012-01-11 Thread Bill Nottingham
AKA, taking a blowtorch to the comps file. TL;DR version - come to the talk at FUDCon! I'm here to propose a reworking of how we handle the data in the comps file. (If you don't know what that is, it likely doesn't concern you.) Currently, we have two main use cases for the package groups and