New subject: [opensuse-factory] Re: [opensuse-packaging] Compilation of summarized Group arguments/statements and timeline

16 Oct 2019

      MAY OF 2018.

[1.0] TC: too strict requirements on group
JE: let's give ourselves some time to come up with better options

[1.0] TC: only yast and rpm display the group value, let's remove it
JE: there are other programs that can display or use it in some fashion

[1.0] TC: it does not really make sense to install packages based groups
JE: the Group field's purpose is not for installation, but browsing

[1.3] WR: annoyed by wrong or inconsistent groups.
JE: I'm on it, fixing it. (To date, around 350 edits could be found
from my side alone to that end. In other cases, no edit was needed,
or the package has not yet crossed my field of sight.)

[1.4] WR: trying to figure out the single-category group is hard.
(JE: agreement; go for tags)

[1.5] MC: recurring packager questions like
"What is the Group field for?", "which to choose?"
(JE: agreement; go for tags, that seems to work out well
for freshcode.club and stackexchange.com)

[1.6] MC: (basically Fedora failed to get a grip on Groups,
so the world should remove it)
(JE: openSUSE has a grip, so "keep" and/or do tags)

CONCLUSION OF MAY 2018.

Supporters of having some value for "Group":

	Jan Engelhardt
	[1.3] "The grouping made yast something of a "Things to Explore" guide to the packages it had."
	Scott Bahling @SUSE
	[1.9] "I'm using the rpm Group tag as a way to index software in Package Hub"
	Wolfgang Rosenauer @SUSE
	[1.4] "I use the group index to find software I might be interested in."
	Adam Majer @SUSE
	[1.7] "Debian has been using package tags[1] for a number of years in addition to groups."
	Stefan Behlert @SUSE
	[1.8] "I personally like the groups. They give you a good hint what a package is for."

Opponents of "Group":

	Tomas Chvatal. Apart from the initial message, has not
	made any reply in that thread to the counter arguments
	(maybe they were too convincing).

	Matěj Cepl
	Michal Kubecek

The supporters have made their case and commitment to work it.
Technically, being a meritocracy, this decided that the Group
tag is to stay for the time being, and be enhanced as we go.

JUNE OF 2019.

[2.0] IG: Fedora guy here, I missed the previous discussion on groups, so I am
proposing the removal again.
JE: Link to the previous discussion.

[2.1] NG: "I'm actually not a fan of the fact Fedora doesn't use the Group tag.
... I'd rather re-introduce a better formulated Group tag"

[2.2] TC: "We are already in process of abandoning it."
-> in violation of the May resolution

[2.3] TK: single-value group is useless currently
-> the idea of tags is just floating

[2.3] TK: "many Group entries are wrong, useless or something similar"
JE: "Most Group entries are actually right", I'm doing the dang reviews
where all the spec files pass my eagle eyes.

CONCLUSION OF JUNE 2019.

(New) supporters of having some value for "Group":

	Neil Gompa

(New) opponents:

	Maurizio Galli (MauG)

AUGUST 2019.

[3.0] TC: "As there was no major pushback",
ignores the May result, ignores the June discussion
even after being pointed to previous threads.

[3.1] TC: "Your lonely complain is not a major pushback..."
JE: This overview is proof of the contrary.

[3.2] SK: "should eliminate *the need* to have a group line."
JE: agreement

[3.3] HPJ: "OTOH, I cannot see a good reason to *actively* *eliminate* the
Group line"

[3.4] BV: Concern that removing Group is extra work.

CONCLUSION OF AUGUST 2019.

	* new .spec files can come without a group line;
	  groups/tags can be added later by those who care
	* keep Group lines

	* A tag browser software is on display to showcase that
	  even the old groups _work reasonably well_ as tags
	  for the purpose of software browsing and discovery.
	* rpmlint was amended in late September not to warn on
	  wrong group lines anymore
	* Group: can thus be freeform, allowing for a tag system
	  (whitespace-separated words)

(New) supporters of having some value for "Group":

	Hans-Peter Jansen

OCTOBER 2019.

[] Opponents: maintainers are gods over their own packages
[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.

[4.2] TK: repeats his prior statement that groups are useless
JE: repeats his prior statement that they are in good shape

[4.3] TK: wiki has not corresponded to what the tooling does
[4.4] JE: disproves TK and explains the circumstances

[4.5] HPJ gets annoyed by Opponents' removal of Group lines 
in his package.

OVERALL.

Opponents start killing off Group tag even though that goes directly
against the goal of the Group/Tags subproject and its Supporters. Bad.

Opponents claim "it was decided", but this decision was at best
unilateral and there is anything _but_ consensus about the removal. In 
doing so, they also overstep other maintainers [SR 738421]. Very bad.

The wiki has a strange position in all this. Many regard it as an 
authoritative manual, but only where it is convenient and matches 
practice.

Right now it says "Group: only package groups listed in the package
group guidelines should be used." [5.0] and "New groups can be
created by just starting to make use of them in .spec files." [5.1],
so I will hold it to that.

MAIL REFERENCES (webview).

[1.0] https://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-factory/2018-05/msg00460.html
[1.3] https://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-factory/2018-05/msg00507.html
[1.4] https://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-factory/2018-05/msg00511.html
[1.5] https://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-factory/2018-05/msg00517.html
[1.6] https://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-factory/2018-05/msg00517.html
[1.7] https://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-factory/2018-06/msg00004.html
[1.8] https://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-factory/2018-06/msg00131.html
[1.9] https://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-factory/2018-05/msg00503.html

[2.0] https://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-factory/2019-06/msg00054.html
[2.1] https://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-factory/2019-06/msg00056.html
[2.2] https://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-factory/2019-06/msg00058.html
[2.3] https://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-factory/2019-06/msg00059.html

[3.0] https://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-factory/2019-08/msg00253.html
[3.1] https://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-factory/2019-08/msg00257.html
[3.2] https://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-factory/2019-08/msg00262.html
[3.3] https://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-factory/2019-08/msg00268.html
[3.4] https://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-factory/2019-09/msg00034.html

[4.0] https://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-factory/2019-10/msg00039.html
[4.2] https://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-factory/2019-10/msg00046.html
[4.3] https://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-factory/2019-10/msg00048.html
[4.4] https://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-factory/2019-10/msg00051.html

[5.0] https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Specfile_guidelines
[5.1] https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Package_group_guidelines
-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

[opensuse-factory] Compilation of summarized Group arguments/statements and timeline

Matěj Cepl

tags

participants (25)