On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 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 :) Yeah, only the change in fedora-release-workstation though. The Requires is still in gnome-shell. I'd like to remove it but given the rather long discussions I didn't feel it was quite kosher to do so at the moment. >> 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. I think the Workstation WG feels it's mandatory. >> > 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. Ditto :) josh -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
