[Rpm-metadata] groups/comps dtd
Jeremy Katz
katzj at redhat.com
Wed Nov 12 01:26:42 UTC 2003
On Sun, 2003-11-09 at 23:55, seth vidal wrote:
> Changes:
> - <groupreq> inside <grouplist> is dropped for adding a 'mandatory'
> 'type' attribute to the <metapkg> element.
Eh, I guess. There used to be a better reason not to do this, but as I
told you, I can't really remember what it was :-)
> - I have not included the <grouphierarchy> sections - not sure what the
> purpose of these sections entirely would be for repository group data.
They describe presentation, unfortunately, once you start mixing more
than one, I agree that I have no clue how they should interact. It
would be good to have a consistent way to organize groups
hierarchically, though, as there's a lot to be gained by categorizing as
opposed to just having a flat list.
> questions:
> - not sure what the default element is for
Whether or not a group is selected by default. Typically only of
relevance on an initial install.
> - should type for metapkg and groupreq be enumerated?
> - 'uservisible' and maybe 'default' should be attributes to the <group>
> tag?
Could be, I don't really feel strongly. The original reason they
weren't made attributes is because attributes are slightly more
cumbersome to work with, IIRC.
Cheers,
Jeremy
More information about the Rpm-metadata
mailing list