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.
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
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
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
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 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.
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.
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
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
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
is "the" package manager anyway.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner(a)opensuse.org