#1525 document additional_packages vs comps
Closed: Fixed 2 years ago by ktdreyer. Opened 2 years ago by ktdreyer.

There are two ways to provide package lists to PungI: listing a package in additional_packages, and listing it in comps.

It's difficult to understand CentOS 9's Pungi configuration because the release engineers use both.

It would be great to write documentation to explain why someone would use additional_packages instead of listing everything in comps, and guide users to use one or the other to simplify configurations.


CC @jwboyer - can you share some insight about why CentOS 9's config uses additional_packages as well as comps?

I don't think this repo is the right place to make that comment. It has more to do with Stream/RHEL's usage of pungi than it does pungi itself.

An important distinction is that while additional_packages merely add the package to the compose, comps file change has another effect: the comps group is visible to users via dnf groupinstall.

Adding this to the documentation would probably be useful, but I don't think we should guide users here in any way, since the decision needs some knowledge of what they are building.

Thanks @lsedlar , that's helpful.

I've pushed a doc update in #1530

Metadata Update from @ktdreyer:
- Issue close_status updated to: Fixed
- Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)

2 years ago

Metadata Update from @lsedlar:
- Issue set to the milestone: 4.3.0

2 years ago

Login to comment on this ticket.

Metadata
Related Pull Requests
  • #1530 Merged 2 years ago