On Tue, 2014-12-23 at 10:21 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > 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? Here's a ping on this (as I only got feedback from Mike before - anyone else?) and a modification: I'd like to extend the Beta criterion to read: "When installing with a release-blocking dedicated installer image, the default package set must be correct, and choosing a different package set must work." with a footnote something like: "'work' means that the package set selection mechanism itself must work; when used, the packages that form the chosen set must actually be the ones marked for installation. Package issues that render one or more selectable package sets un-installable do not constitute a violation of this criterion, though they may be violations of other criteria." this is to cover things like https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1179362 , which I noticed when filing it is a bit of a loophole in the proposed criteria. Any more thoughts, folks? Thanks! -- 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
