On 10/17/19 7:09 PM, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Thursday 2019-10-17 02:15, Simon Lees wrote:
On 10/17/19 6:26 AM, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
MAY OF 2018.
[4.0] JE: I'm trying to run a distro-wide endeavor here, there should be limits as to what maintainers can and cannot oppose.
This wasn't the way you worded it in your original email.
Perhaps https://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-factory/2019-10/msg00044.html .
Well I was _hoping_ that people would be smart enough to recognize that two discussions and plenty of SRs mean something.
And if it's still not clear, let's say it out loud again: - THE GROUP FIELD IS FOR CATEGORIZATION. - CATEGORIZATION IS USEFUL WHEN THERE ARE PLENTY OF DIFFERENT PACKAGES. - A DISTRO IS THE PLACE WHERE DIFFERENT PACKAGES COME TOGETHER. - THEREFORE, THE GROUP FIELD IS A DISTRO-WIDE THING. - SOMETIMES, IT REACHES CROSS-DISTRO NIVEAU.
If this is what your thinking it seems you are trying to run a "distro-wide endeavor" without the buy in of most of the distro. It seems while some other people think "tags" might be useful,
No one else agrees that the current system is useful
PackageHub and rpm-catalog are counterexample of this opinion.
the fact that the info has been removed from openSUSE's tools
It has been removed from one tool (yast), others never had it (zypper), and there are other things that evaluate the field (PH, rc).
maybe the only place the current groups could be really useful is to convert to a new "tag" system if there comes to a consensus on that.
Hard to speak about consensus at this point, but as my overview tried to outline, I think there are more proponents for "group or tag (but in any case, keep)" than "remove".
If you would like to work on this as a distro wide project then you really need consensus from a significant part of the distro.
I had hoped I had the consensus, giving SRs were accepted so far to shift classic groups (which has later been shown to be a usable tag source too) to the right value.
Part of this would be proposing what the tags would look like
This was already proposed. By suggesting it should be proposed, you reaffirm my impression that you and others have not followed the discussion truly.
Tags made an appearance here
[1.6] https://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-factory/2018-05/msg00518.html [] https://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-factory/2019-09/msg00031.html
and, repeating myself again, because people, by this point in the mail, will have already forgotten again that classico groups turned out to also work as tags. (see PackageHub)
I have been loosly following the discussion, because frankly I don't care that much but no where have I seen a proposal that gives me some idea what level of the highrachy tags would follow and If I wanted to add tags to my packages I would frankly have no idea what would be appropriate.
I hope you can now understand my frustration with all the SUSE people that make or participate in the threads whose subject aptly includes "Group" and then pretend afterwards they did not see any replies, counterarguments, counterproposals and even proof of concept.
so that we can as a community decide they are useful and have the
As there is no formal (e.g. Debian-style) "voting process" in matters, discussion responses in essence get evaluated decentrally, and usually it is clear that there is a majority for one particular outcome or another.
I am on the board and have been an openSUSE developer for 8+ years, I have some idea of how things should work, generally for a new distro wide feature i'd expect a detailed proposal be posted to this list which can then be refined and generally agreed upon, I haven't seen that here for package tags. If you want a decent example look at the discussions around /usr/etc from earlier in the year.
Based upon this established process and my recollection of the prior responses, I have come to the conclusion that my position has a larger share of supporters. This is presented in the overview.
Yes but in this case you didn't count the implicit non responses, I don't expect that everyone who agree's with a proposal such as removing rpm groups needs to add a +1 to the email thread, that has generally not been the case here, it is up to people to object and of the nearly 500 registered developers we have very few chose to do so.
right level of granularity right now I have no idea what your tag system would look like so I have no idea if I think it would be useful and would support it. Maybe a wiki page with a proposal of tags would be a good starting point here.
A section was added just yesterday at https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Package_group_guidelines
Thanks this is the starting point I'd expect to see for this kind of proposal
Four packages have been submitted in the direction of Factory very recently X11:Wayland/vulkan-*, more are to follow over time.
I think you also need to get buy in from the Yast team, Yast is openSUSE's package manager and if it is never going to support using tags in a meaningful way then personally I don't really see a whole lot of point in maintaining them.
Again, PackageHub, and (this was before I knew PackageHub had it too) the proof-of-concept browser, rpm-catalog.
Yast is but one drop. While it is a significant application in its own right, equally many people consider zypper to be openSUSE's "package manager" lest rpm is "the" package manager anyway.
Yep well i'd presume that the default package manager for those interested in searching for packages via group / tag would be yast, I don't expect people to need to install some other proof of concept tool. If the community does accept and adopt this "tag" based approach it would also be interesting to see stuff like software.o.o able to search via tag as that is another common way people search for packages. -- Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30 GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org