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