On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 03:00:21PM -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote:
On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 11:09 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote:
It should be really easy to make a script that builds metagroup packages from comps, no?
This will allow someone to install a group such as kde/gnome as an rpm package and when packages are removed/added/changed in the comps groups, the meta group package also changes, and the user gets the appropriate changes.
I don't think this is possible now with the groupinstall feature in yum which IMO is a bad feature since it should be done with meta group packages as I describe.
Comments?
The entire point here is that there don't have to be packages to keep track of this metadata -- so if you change comps, you don't have to go change lots of packages. This is also really helpful for doing site-specific customizations of what the various groups are.
The argument about a "noob" is pretty much moot as they're far more likely to be using the graphical interface as opposed to yum on the command line. And at that point, the comps file becomes even _more_ important as it's used for the entirety of the display.
Jeremy
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
I agree that packages for maintaining this metadata is bad.
However, I do have issues related to this. I build/maintain slightly modified versions of FC/RHEL to support NC State University. For some time now administrators on campus have known that if they want a stripped down server they can use kickstart and include the Server group. For workstations, the kickstart has one or two workstation groups that install the standard setup.
Now to install a workstation the kickstart needs to have...I think I stopped counting at 15 groups. This is slightly problematic in 2 ways. I have a pretty big re-education effort (much more so than if the names of the group changed or only 1 or 2 additions). Also, there's a large risk that one group or another will forget/add certain groups making my managed clients less identical, harder to maintain, and even worse to support.
Perhaps I've missed something.
Jack