The "Package sets" criterion for Alpha currently reads: "When doing a graphical install using the dedicated installer images, the installer must be able to install each of the release blocking desktops, as well as the minimal package set." This was drafted prior to Product-ization. It has a bug - you can't do that from the Server DVD, and that's intended - and two problems - it's too focused on desktops for the new Product-y world, and the 'graphical' restriction seems arbitrary (TUI should work regarding package sets too). It also is missing something: there's no requirement about what the *default* package set should be. I propose we re-word the Alpha criterion to: "When installing with a release-blocking dedicated installer image, the installer must be able to install the default package set." and add a Beta criterion: "When installing with a release-blocking dedicated installer image, the default package set must be correct." with an explanatory note that 'correct' means the package set intended by the group responsible for the image - Product WG, FESCo or whoever. I'm not sure whether we need a requirement for non-default package sets. Note that the case for offline media is already covered by Alpha criterion "No broken packages": "There must be no errors in any package on the release-blocking images which cause the package to fail to install." network installs using updates media don't really need to block on package set issues, as they can be fixed. That leaves the question of whether we'd want to block the release if, say, there was a bug which meant that if you tried to netinst KDE without the updates repos enabled, it failed. What do folks think about that? -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
