On 15.09.2008 00:05, Conrad Meyer wrote:
Quoth Thorsten Leemhuis:
> == nonfree ==
...
>
konrad_[AT]_tylerc.org | jad | RPM jad not found in comps.xml for
nonfree-devel
>
konrad_[AT]_tylerc.org | jad | RPM jad not found in comps.xml for
nonfree-F-8
>
konrad_[AT]_tylerc.org | jad | RPM jad not found in comps.xml for
nonfree-F-9
>
konrad_[AT]_tylerc.org | unrar | RPM unrar not found in comps.xml for
nonfree-devel
>
konrad_[AT]_tylerc.org | unrar | RPM unrar not found in comps.xml for
nonfree-F-8
>
konrad_[AT]_tylerc.org | unrar | RPM unrar not found in comps.xml for
nonfree-F-9
...
> == End ==
>
> The usual warning for such script-created lists applies of course: there
might
> be some false positives in this list.
>
> One more note: yes, people care if packages are listed in comps.xml; take
for
> example
http://bugzilla.livna.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2069
>
> It'll also important for spin creation later, so please add you packages to
the
> comps files in CVS. tia!
unrar and jad are both command line programs that don't really make sense to
list in comps.
We had those discussions in Fedora-land a year or two ago :-/ The
agreement was to list everything -- including command-line apps and libs
that get tracked as deps from other packages normally.
I'd thius say we should handle it in RPM Fusion the same way. And
especially unrar is a good example for why even command-line apps should
be in comps: yes, it's a command-line app, but it iirc can be used by
file-roller or other archiver frontends. Some users might want to
install it from anaconda -- those should be able to find it, which only
works if you go and add it.
And note that we even have a group that's called "Miscellaneous command
line tools" where it really suits well. I'd even would mark it as
"default" to make sure everybody that selects this group gets unrar.
Also the checker script is much easier to handle if everything is in
comps.xml. Sure, I could add a whitelist to it, but adding those
packages once to comps.xml is just as easy ;-)
CU
knurd