#116: Clarify https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Mediakit_FileConflicts to say that explicit Conflicts: are acceptable -----------------------+---------------------------------------------------- Reporter: adamwill | Owner: rhe Type: defect | Status: reopened Priority: major | Milestone: Component: Wiki | Version: Resolution: | Keywords: -----------------------+---------------------------------------------------- Comment (by kparal): Replying to [comment:10 adamwill]: > No packages on the split CD or DVD images that are in any way available for selection during an interactive install may conflict with each other. How do we check "available for selection"? We can't crawl through all the package lists to see whether a package is available for selection or not. Replying to [comment:9 jlaska]: > Are we now comfortable with allowing a prompt for package conflicts on the media for certain types of conflicts? I think when the conflicts are properly defined (that means using RPM Conflicts tag), there's nothing wrong with it. We should be able to have two mutually exclusive alternatives for some tool available on the media (why not?). The best user experience would be if anaconda displayed a warning dialog right away in custom package selection. But showing dialog after custom selection is complete is satisfactory too. Of course no package conflicts dialog should be shown for the pre-defined install groups (Desktop, Server, Minimal, etc). That should be covered in a test case. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/116#comment:11> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
