On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Petr Schindler <pschindl@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Čt, 2012-09-06 at 09:57 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: >> On 2012-09-06 0:59, Kamil Paral wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> Because of changes in package set selection in new anaconda, I >> >> propose >> >> to amend the alpha criterion: >> >> >> >> 'The installer must be able to complete package installation with >> >> the >> >> default package set for each supported installation method' >> >> >> >> to: >> >> >> >> 'The installer must be able to install the default desktop for each >> >> supported installation method (DVD, live, netinst, PXE, ...)' >> >> >> >> I chose default desktop because in f17 every installation method had >> >> it >> >> as default package set. >> > >> > It makes sense to adjust it, because there is no longer "default" >> > package set. Also big thanks for clarifying what "installation >> > methods" mean. >> >> Do we know if it's *intended* that there's no default package set, or >> is that a bug? It only makes sense to amend the criterion if the lack of >> a default package set is actually intended. Also, if it's intended that >> there's no default package set, can there be said to be a 'default >> desktop' any more? GNOME is only the 'default' in that it's the desktop >> in the 'default package set'. If there's no 'default package set', GNOME >> becomes simply a choice on the package set selection screen, co-equal >> with all the others. I can't see how it can be called 'the default'. >> >> > I wonder - we require only the default desktop (GNOME) to be >> > installable, but we have further Alpha criteria for other >> > release-blocking desktops (KDE)? That's funny :-) >> >> > Maybe we should say: >> > 'The installer must be able to (successfully) install *all >> > release-blocking desktops* for each supported installation method >> > (DVD, live, netinst, PXE, ...)' >> >> I think that's better, if we assume the new behaviour in anaconda is >> actually intended. > > There is no default 'package set' now (by design, it's not a bug). This *is* a bug IMO. We should have reasonable defaults and allow the user to change them if he wants. But we should not force the user to make choices that way. A user would have to know the differences between the options to be able to make an informed decision. In case the user has this knowledge he/she can open the spoke and change the selection. In case the user doesn't it might more or less end up in a random/wrong change. -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
