[Yum-devel] groupreq in yum-2.6?

Paul Nasrat pnasrat at redhat.com
Fri May 12 13:21:44 UTC 2006

On Fri, 2006-05-12 at 08:50 -0400, Brian Long wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-05-12 at 08:47 -0400, Paul Nasrat wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-05-12 at 08:12 -0400, Brian Long wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > > 
> > > A few weeks ago, I discussed our need for groupreq to return in yum-2.6
> > > since we rely on it heavily in our 5,000+ node installation of RHEL 3
> > > and 4.  Has there been any thought into re-introducing groupreq into
> > > yum-2.6?  Should I open a bugzilla?
> > 
> > The new comps.xml format does not use group requirements.  You should be
> > able to convert your comps.xml format to that used by yum 2.6.
> I understand a feature in comps.xml was removed that I found useful and
> I use on thousands of nodes daily.  Why was the comps.xml file changed
> to remove useful functionality?  

IIRC group dependencies actually really complicates depsolving as you
can end up with recursive groups - we already have to do loop cutting
for packages anyway - doing this at a level which doesn't really have
strong definitions. For old versions of anaconda we computed order up

As far as I remember groupreq was used in a few ways:

1) To artificially pull in deps - this is wrong if a package depends on
something the dependencies should all be explicit.

2) Groupings of groups for ui tools - this has been replaced with
categories in the new metadata format.

I believe the rationale was that that it was really overridden behaviour
expected from groupreq - and splitting out the ui component to
categories for logical grouping and letting the packages take care of
the deps was the right thing to do.

What precisely are you trying to achieve with groupreq?  Lets see if we
can figure a way to do what you want.  

Things tend to come across better on development lists expressed in
terms of problems rather than "I use this every day on my mega-huge
cluster".  See also

Certainly it's not our goal to make things hard, but the correct place
for requirements is at 

> Where was this discussed - on internal
> Red Hat lists?

As far as I remember it was all done publically - probably via one of
the fedora, rpm-metadata or yum lists, I could be wrong Jeremy worked on
the comps.xml changes for pirut/pup.  Certainly it was not intended to
be behind closed doors - for comparison see the split metadata
discussions for CD work on the list.


More information about the Yum-devel mailing list