On Sat, 2016-02-27 at 11:30 +0100, Kalev Lember wrote: > 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. But then doesn't that just pass the problem off to the spins still using @gnome-desktop, and users that installed prior to F21? I guess that is a much smaller subset of users that will face the upgrade problem, though, so you're right, this is probably a better approach. (It's also kind of nice to have a separation between the GNOME packages, and "extra" packages, but I can live without that....) > 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. Well I agree it's not great, but if we have graphical upgrade tool that does work properly, I think we can reasonably expect users to use that, and anyone who tries the command line instead to apply a simple one- time workaround. Though, I wonder if this would break 'dnf autoremove' as well... and that is not a one-time issue, but a permanent problem.... Michael -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
