On 02/26/2016 09:53 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > Hi, > > Seems my effort to deduplicate @gnome-desktop and @fedora-workstation > got reverted again, because it breaks upgrades from F23 -> F24 via dnf > when @gnome-desktop is not installed, which is the expected and default > case. dnf wants to remove all of GNOME because it's no longer present > in @fedora-workstation, and @gnome-desktop is not already installed. > > I don't think we want to continue to maintain these groups separately, > it leads to many "bugs" (unexpected differences) between the two > groups, with developers accidentally editing one but not the other. So: > does anyone have any suggestions to avoid this problem? Maybe just remove @gnome-desktop ? We don't really have a gnome desktop spin any more, so it doesn't make that much sense to keep it around. I think this was the plan all along, it was just that the workstation groups landed late in the F21 cycle and it was too late to remove @gnome-desktop at that point without potentially breaking other spins that were using it. > The best solution I could come up with is to simply tell users to 'sudo > dnf install @gnome-desktop' before upgrading with dnf, and list this on > the known problems wiki page. Since gnome-software is now our default > and expected method for upgrading Fedora Workstation, I think it's OK > for there to be some hiccups when upgrading with dnf, but it would > still be really nice to have some way to handle this automatically... > could we somehow make the one group depend on the other, for instance? I don't think that having users install a group manually to unbreak upgrades is the way to go here. It feels like we're asking users to work around things that should just work out of the box. If it means that we need to keep @gnome-desktop around for a few more releases, so be it. The tradeoff in this case, where in one case we'd have to keep an obsolete group around vs the alternative of requiring users to manually install a group seems like it has a clear winner, at least in my mind. > Also, > > How does gnome-software handle this issue? I don't think it has any comps handling at all. It just operates on packages. -- Kalev -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
