On 02/27/2016 10:06 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 08:26:40AM -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote: >>> 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....) > > From a high-level conceptual standpoint, I like the idea of > @fedora-workstation including (e.g. being built on) @gnome-desktop, but > being separate and additive. That reinforces the idea that the editions > aren't merely upstream tech showcases which we are arbitrarily > elevating over other possiblities. They're meant to be Fedora-focused > marketing tools, in the complete sense of marketing — not just the part > about ad copy and swag, but a whole deal where we look at market > opportunities and try to build something that will fill them. > > > But, that shouldn't get in the way doing what works best pragmatically > at this level. :) > This isn't the problem. We have the Fedora Workstation environment group for that purpose. Environment groups contain package groups. Both @fedora-workstation and @gnome-desktop are package groups. So there's an argument to be made that perhaps @fedora-workstation should go away and be replaced by @^workstation-product-environment entirely.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
