On Thu, 2018-06-14 at 17:31 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2018-06-14 at 19:25 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 03:47:25PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > There's a footnote explaining that already: > > > > Ah, that clears it up. Thanks :) > > > > > as explained there, we actually *specifically* added this wording > > > because there was a bug with packages from modules being selected as > > > updates when the modules they were from weren't installed, and we felt > > > it was best to have the criterion explicitly cover this kind of > > > situation. > > > > Hmmm; this *could* apply to install, too -- for example, installing a > > package from a module that's not supposed to be enabled, or failing to > > from one that is. > > Hum, that's a decent point. /me continues to cogitate So, having cogitated, how about this wording? Basic: "The installed system must be able appropriately to install, remove, and update software with the default console tool for the relevant software type (e.g. default console package manager). This includes downloading of packages to be installed/updated." Beta: "The installed system must be able appropriately to install, remove, and update software with the default tool for the relevant software type in all release-blocking desktops (e.g. default graphical package manager). This includes downloading of packages to be installed/updated." Grammatically, this means the "appropriately" applies to all three actions ("install, remove and update"). The footnote would read: "Appropriately? ''Appropriately'' means that the relevant software mechanism(s) for any given deployment must choose the software to be installed, updated or removed in ways that are broadly in line with the user's intent and typical expectations, and the project's intent as to which software should be provided from which repositories etc. To give a specific example of why this wording is included, there was previously a case where newer package versions from modules were being installed as 'updates' to systems which did not have those modules installed, only the package with the same name from the non-modular system repositories. This would be an example of 'inappropriate' updating that violated this criterion. Other examples might include installing packages from the wrong module stream, or failing to include available updates from an enabled official repository." Does that sound good to everyone? Thanks! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ desktop mailing list -- desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to desktop-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/ESFHPARCUBI5UJMHCW774XSHSY4FXN3U/