diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'zarb-ml/mageia-discuss/20101118/003029.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | zarb-ml/mageia-discuss/20101118/003029.html | 171 |
1 files changed, 171 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-discuss/20101118/003029.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-discuss/20101118/003029.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..ff6ca168d --- /dev/null +++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-discuss/20101118/003029.html @@ -0,0 +1,171 @@ +<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> +<HTML> + <HEAD> + <TITLE> [Mageia-discuss] Introducing mageia-app-db + </TITLE> + <LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" > + <LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:mageia-discuss%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-discuss%5D%20Introducing%20mageia-app-db&In-Reply-To=%3C4CE4C5B5.40200%40laposte.net%3E"> + <META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow"> + <META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> + + <LINK REL="Next" HREF="003031.html"> + </HEAD> + <BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"> + <H1>[Mageia-discuss] Introducing mageia-app-db</H1> + <B>andre999</B> + <A HREF="mailto:mageia-discuss%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-discuss%5D%20Introducing%20mageia-app-db&In-Reply-To=%3C4CE4C5B5.40200%40laposte.net%3E" + TITLE="[Mageia-discuss] Introducing mageia-app-db">andr55 at laposte.net + </A><BR> + <I>Thu Nov 18 07:20:37 CET 2010</I> + <P><UL> + + <LI>Next message: <A HREF="003031.html">[Mageia-discuss] Introducing mageia-app-db +</A></li> + <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> + <a href="date.html#3029">[ date ]</a> + <a href="thread.html#3029">[ thread ]</a> + <a href="subject.html#3029">[ subject ]</a> + <a href="author.html#3029">[ author ]</a> + </LI> + </UL> + <HR> +<!--beginarticle--> +<PRE>Samuel Verschelde a écrit : +><i> Le mardi 9 novembre 2010 05:57:36, andre999 a écrit : +</I>><i> +</I>>><i> Samuel Verschelde a écrit : +</I>>><i> +</I>>>><i> Le vendredi 5 novembre 2010 06:38:14, andre999 a écrit : +</I>>>><i> +</I>>>><i> +</I>>>>><i> As far as the question of application/package view goes, folding entries +</I>>>>><i> (as in Rpmdrake groups or Nautilus) which expands to multi-line would be +</I>>>>><i> nice. +</I>>>>><i> That way complex packages like Openoffice or Firefox could be folded +</I>>>>><i> into 2 or 3 lines. +</I>>>>><i> (1 for localisation, another possibly for optional modules, another for +</I>>>>><i> core modules.) +</I>>>>><i> Now Firefox is more than 100 packages. +</I>>>>><i> This sort of suggestion has been made for Rpmdrake. +</I>>>>><i> The advantage of this approach is that the minimised view could be the +</I>>>>><i> default, and at any time it can be expanded to show all packages, +</I>>>>><i> without any configuration settings. +</I>>>>><i> +</I>>>>><i> +</I>>>><i> I'm not against, however how can we define those groups ? Is there a way to automate it ? Is it necessary to define it manually (and so to maintain it so have maintainers of these groups definitions) ? +</I>>>><i> +</I>>>><i> +</I>>><i> First of all, the idea is to continue to use Mandriva-like categories +</I>>><i> for the packages, as in Rpmdrake. So we associate packages within these +</I>>><i> larger categories. +</I>>><i> +</I>>><i> The basic idea is to establish a hierarchy of views for multi-package +</I>>><i> applications. +</I>>><i> These associations should be designated according to guidelines, which +</I>>><i> are yet to be established, according to the best judgement of the packager. +</I>>><i> +</I>>><i> Otherwise I don't see how we can arrive at consistant and useful +</I>>><i> associations, especially if being used by different applications, like +</I>>><i> Rpmdrake and your (very interesting and useful) project. It is +</I>>><i> important that such applications are able to discern these associations, +</I>>><i> in order to display them. +</I>>><i> +</I>>><i> First it will be useful to look at the different types of associations : +</I>>><i> 1) Where usually all of the associated packages would be installed, such +</I>>><i> as core packages of OpenOffice or Go-oo or LibreOffice. +</I>>><i> +</I>>><i> 2) Where usually only one - or a few - of the associated packages would +</I>>><i> be installed, such as localisations. +</I>>><i> +</I>>><i> 3) Something in between, such as optional extensions for Firefox +</I>>><i> +</I>><i> I read your whole post (had to come back 2 times to manage to finish it ! :)). +</I>Hope that's good :) +><i> Some comments : +</I>><i> - using a new tag to group packages together may be a solution for packages which have many optional subpackages, however this means we must reach a consensus among packagers. A complete proposal which have been tested on most of the examples you brought in your post could maybe help convincing other packagers. Adding a new tag is not a trivial move and maybe could break some compatibilty with other distributions, so I think it must be "proved" that it is the best solution (if it is). +</I>><i> +</I>I understand. + +><i> - another simple way could be to group by source rpm. It won't always work, but that can be a first step, to experiment with. +</I>><i> - task meta-packages can be another solution +</I>><i> - we may have a look at what a package provides and group together packages whose names are close and which provide the same thing (eg. all packages which provide "openoffice.org-l10n" grouped together) +</I>><i> +</I>Excellent points. Which gives me an idea how to accomplish folding, +without changing the internals of the rpms : +First, note that very few if any package names contain ":". +So to fold packages associated with package "foo", on the line of "foo", +we could name the associated packages "foo:suba", "foo:subb", etc, +beginning with the name of the primary package + ":". +To fold associated packages on a subsequent line (as would be useful for +localisation packages, for example), we would create a meta-package +"foo:subc". Seeing that it is a meta package, the packages under it +would be folded into a line *under* "foo". And expanding the +meta-package line would show all contained packages. +Other meta packages (without ":" in the name) would be similarly +expandable. The only difference being that they would not be associated +with another group of packages. +This approach has the advantage of leaving the internals of rpm +unchanged for this purpose. +One just adds ":" to the name of associated packages, and creates some +grouping meta-packages. +Actually I'm assuming that there is a means of readily identifying a +meta-package other than "task" in the name. Correct me if I'm wrong. + +Another advantage is it lets users more readily see the packages +contained in a meta-package. And in installing, potentially allows +deselecting a package contained in a meta-package to be installed. +(Yes, I know, a meta-package only refers to other packages, not +containing them.) + +Of course it still needs consensus by the packagers - but it is a lot +easier to implement, and probably more reliable as well. + +><i> - it would be interesting to look at other distributions, to see how they solved or tried to solve this problem. How does ubuntu in its package manager for example ? +</I>><i> +</I>Good idea. Good to look at Suse as well, as they have made a number of +enhancements to rpm. +><i> If you have some free time and motivation, while we're waiting for the build system, you could maybe help us define how to show packages to users in mageia-app-db. If we can define a robust algorithm for package grouping, we'll try to implement it. +</I>><i> +</I>I think we are getting closer. I'll give this priority. +><i> Another problem you mentioned is how to define what an "application" is. We could use some help on this subject too :) +</I>><i> +</I>That is definitely tricky. It should probably be more than just GUI. +It might be simpler to just rely on folding ? (What is specifically +folded with what will be ultimately decided by the packager.) +><i> You can have a look at this wiki page (on our new Redmine project, thanks to Jehane for setting it up) which is dedicated to this matter : <A HREF="http://mageia-app-db.tuxette.fr/projects/mageia-app-db/wiki/Applications">http://mageia-app-db.tuxette.fr/projects/mageia-app-db/wiki/Applications</A> +</I>><i> +</I>So I imagine my thoughts go under "crazy ideas" ? ;) +(I like how the wiki page is set up.) + +BTW, I really appreciate your comments. Makes me think :) + +If anyone has any ideas relating to this, don't hesitate to comment ... +><i> Regards +</I>><i> +</I>><i> Samuel Verschelde +</I>><i> +</I> +- André +</PRE> + + + +<!--endarticle--> + <HR> + <P><UL> + <!--threads--> + + <LI>Next message: <A HREF="003031.html">[Mageia-discuss] Introducing mageia-app-db +</A></li> + <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> + <a href="date.html#3029">[ date ]</a> + <a href="thread.html#3029">[ thread ]</a> + <a href="subject.html#3029">[ subject ]</a> + <a href="author.html#3029">[ author ]</a> + </LI> + </UL> + +<hr> +<a href="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-discuss">More information about the Mageia-discuss +mailing list</a><br> +</body></html> |