On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 08:30 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 8:21 AM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Just a bit of an update; the new upgrade plan should be able to resolve > > this issue without the patch (and also in a way that is likely > > acceptable to all groups). > > > > We can remove the explicit Requires: NM-captive-portal-fedora from both > > gnome-shell and fedora-release workstation, because the new 'fedup > > --network 21 --product=workstation' command will automatically install > > it as long as it's part of the @^workstation-product-environment group > > in comps (which a quick inspection shows is not currently the case but > > is a two-line change that I will submit right now). > > I don't see a need to remove it from fedora-release-workstation now > that it is already in and built. I missed that the change had already occurred. Carry on :) > > Also, unless I'm misunderstanding something, the environment group > doesn't handle cases where someone installs Workstation, the removes > pieces of what we consider "core" functionality. At that point they > are no longer running Workstation. (I'm not sure we have a good > handle on that overall anyway, but removing the current Requires is > fairly pointless.) > Right, I wasn't clear on whether we'd settled on this being mandatory functionality for calling it Workstation. If we did, then the fedora-release-workstation package should absolutely have this dep. > > Of course, this approach has the same issue as this patch does, which is > > that it will only ensure that this new package is added to the > > Workstation upgrades and not to standard upgrades... > > I still don't think that is bad, given that is the entire reason for > the patch in the first place. This was more a concern over the 'opt-in/opt-out' argument. I frankly would prefer it to be opt-out if we could manage it, because it's useful functionality that frankly only a very small number of people would want to disable. But since we have a technical limitation here rather than a policy disagreement, I'm going to stop talking about this topic, I think.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
