On 17/07/2023 19.37, Sam James wrote:
>
> Big fan of the idea & very much in support of it. This also serves
> to give us logical groupings of packages which are closely related
> and should be bumped together.
>
>> There was some brief discussion on IRC about how to document these
>> groupings, and two main ideas were suggested:
>>
>> - add a field to metadata.xml to specify the group by an arbitrary name.
>> E.g.
>> Each package in the group would specify the same value of name="..."
>>
>> - maintain the groups in a separate place (similar to portage @sets).
>>
>> Can anyone think of particular advantages or disadvantages to one
>> solution versus the other? Any other (better) ideas?
>>
>
> When we discussed this a few months ago on IRC, I also brought up a
> related point:
>
> [2023-05-02T18:38:51+0100] <@sam_> do we want to repeat the group members in each member, or do tools need to scan for each thing?
> [2023-05-02T18:39:07+0100] <@sam_> i.e. does each member have ..., or do we do