Re: groups storage - some common ground here too?

> Strictly speaking, Debian's task system isn't used by apt, though some
> of the task information is stored in the apt metadata.  Other tools
> (tasksel, specifically) grab task information from multiple sources and
> assemble them into a coherent whole.  Thus, I imagine Debian would write
> a "tasksel-alike" to handle this metadata.

Aside: I wrote a comps.xml 'merger' in yumcomps.py in yum - it takes
multiple comps.xml and merges their contents. it's handy for making
useful groups :)


> As part of my work on apt-anaconda, we've already gotten a good way
> towards something like this with the current comps.xml, so basing the
> new groups file on comps.xml would be a good idea.

dumb question - where are the patches for the apt-anaconda project? I'd
love to see how much pain it was. 

> We might also be able to pry a DTD for comps.xml out of Red Hat this
> way. :-)

I talked to jeremy about this on irc today, He said it doesn't exist,
that's why it's not out there.


> I certainly don't have a problem with it as long as it's optional.

I agree - groups aren't critical metadata and should be optional for a
functional repository. They're nice, but not manadatory.


-sv