On ma, 16 heinä 2018, Adam Williamson wrote:
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!
This looks good to me. "Appropriately" is a bit of odd word to choose
but what else? ;)
--
/ Alexander Bokovoy
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-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/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/XXNUVNX6MXDF4I3WGYB76AS3GBKY2E6G/
