On Fri, 2013-12-13 at 05:31 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On fös 13.des 2013 02:05, Adam Williamson wrote:
It was clear at the Go/No-Go meeting today that KDE SIG does not consider this release criterion applicable/desired:
"All applications that can be launched using the standard graphical mechanism of a release-blocking desktop after a default installation of that desktop must start successfully and withstand a basic functionality test."
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_20_Final_Release_Criteria#Default_appl...
jreznik says they consider the live image their 'polished product' where everything must work, while the DVD install is more of a grab-bag - they install a whole bunch of stuff, and don't think it's the end of the world if one or two bits are broken.
Given that, I propose re-wording as follows:
You are trying to fix the problem on the wrong end thus leave the criteria as is.
The installing should not differ ( or in other word be consistent ) regardless if you install from the live or from the dvd the end result should be the same.
You should have the same service enablement, the same desktop instalment and experience etc.
So get releng to get their act together and fix that for the dvd so matches with the live.
Per my long reply on the other sub-thread, I'm fine with that if it actually _happens_. But it's not releng's responsibility; it's the KDE and desktop SIGs. They own this stuff: it's their responsibility to choose what packages go in the lives and what packages are deployed when you do a DVD install of their desktops.
On fös 13.des 2013 06:30, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2013-12-13 at 05:31 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On fös 13.des 2013 02:05, Adam Williamson wrote:
It was clear at the Go/No-Go meeting today that KDE SIG does not consider this release criterion applicable/desired:
"All applications that can be launched using the standard graphical mechanism of a release-blocking desktop after a default installation of that desktop must start successfully and withstand a basic functionality test."
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_20_Final_Release_Criteria#Default_appl...
jreznik says they consider the live image their 'polished product' where everything must work, while the DVD install is more of a grab-bag - they install a whole bunch of stuff, and don't think it's the end of the world if one or two bits are broken.
Given that, I propose re-wording as follows:
You are trying to fix the problem on the wrong end thus leave the criteria as is.
The installing should not differ ( or in other word be consistent ) regardless if you install from the live or from the dvd the end result should be the same.
You should have the same service enablement, the same desktop instalment and experience etc.
So get releng to get their act together and fix that for the dvd so matches with the live.
Per my long reply on the other sub-thread, I'm fine with that if it actually _happens_. But it's not releng's responsibility; it's the KDE and desktop SIGs. They own this stuff: it's their responsibility to choose what packages go in the lives and what packages are deployed when you do a DVD install of their desktops.
The DVD is releng/fesco responsibility, they dictate and decide what's on it and what not and how it's delivered not the sub-community's.
There are other differences then just the package selection that get installed for example which services are enabled etc. compared to the lives.
I argue that we should get rid of the DVD it's an era of the past and just provide net-install iso and lives.
Those lives should be under full control of the sub-community both in terms of size,partitioning, filesystem layout.filesystem type, package selection as well as service enablement even to the use an alternative installer but those sub-community should also be responsible for QA-ing ( testing/triaging ) as well as the necessary release engineering work to release their own lives..
JBG
On 13.12.2013 08:25, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
I argue that we should get rid of the DVD it's an era of the past and just provide net-install iso and lives.
Probably there are good reasons why the DVD is still here.
poma
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" (johannbg@gmail.com) said:
The DVD is releng/fesco responsibility, they dictate and decide what's on it and what not and how it's delivered not the sub-community's.
Really?
The KDE SIG has full access to change what gets installed when you install from the DVD. If you're saying it's releng and FESCo's responsibility to fix that, then as a releng and FESCo member, I'll fix it...
commit f349ff05510a1f60cb43470cb544d55136c837c3 (HEAD, f20) Author: Bill Nottingham notting@redhat.com Date: Fri Dec 13 12:22:39 2013 -0500
Drop KDE from the DVD, to avoid blocker bugs due to installed package set.
diff --git a/fedora-install-fedora.ks b/fedora-install-fedora.ks index f1a767f..fd9f4e9 100644 --- a/fedora-install-fedora.ks +++ b/fedora-install-fedora.ks @@ -73,13 +73,6 @@ dracut-* @libreoffice @gnome-games
-## KDE -@kde-desktop -@kde-apps -@kde-education -@kde-media -@kde-office - ## XFCE @xfce-desktop @xfce-apps @@ -111,7 +104,6 @@ dracut-* @rpm-development-tools @fedora-packager @gnome-software-development -@kde-software-development @x-software-development @virtualization @web-server @@ -139,8 +131,6 @@ autocorr-* eclipse-nls-* hunspell-* hyphen-* -calligra-l10n-* -kde-l10n-* libreoffice-langpack-* man-pages-* mythes-*
commit 833fdfaf7ec6a9588b1d51a11b9a2a9d956ab873 (HEAD, master) Author: Bill Nottingham notting@redhat.com Date: Fri Dec 13 12:25:13 2013 -0500
Drop KDE environment as an installation choice. Live media is the SIG-supported install method.
diff --git a/comps-f21.xml.in b/comps-f21.xml.in index 66ff5c5..f462e58 100644 --- a/comps-f21.xml.in +++ b/comps-f21.xml.in @@ -6200,34 +6200,6 @@ </optionlist> </environment> <environment> - <id>kde-desktop-environment</id> - <_name>KDE Plasma Workspaces</_name> - <_description>The KDE Plasma Workspaces, a highly-configurable graphical user interface which includes a panel, desktop, system icons and desktop widgets, and many powerful KDE applications.</_description> - <display_order>10</display_order> - <grouplist> - <groupid>base-x</groupid> - <groupid>standard</groupid> - <groupid>core</groupid> - <groupid>admin-tools</groupid> - <groupid>dial-up</groupid> - <groupid>fonts</groupid> - <groupid>input-methods</groupid> - <groupid>multimedia</groupid> - <groupid>hardware-support</groupid> - <groupid>printing</groupid> - <groupid>guest-desktop-agents</groupid> - <groupid>kde-desktop</groupid> - </grouplist> - <optionlist> - <groupid>kde-apps</groupid> - <groupid>kde-education</groupid> - <groupid>kde-media</groupid> - <groupid>kde-office</groupid> - <groupid>kde-telepathy</groupid> - <groupid>3d-printing</groupid> - </optionlist> - </environment> - <environment> <id>xfce-desktop-environment</id> <_name>Xfce Desktop</_name> <_description>A lightweight desktop environment that works well on low end machines.</_description>
Ready to push whenever.
Now, I'm ASSuming they don't actually want that. But, to be clear: the installation choices of the assorted desktops on the DVD/netinstall are the provence of those SIGs. If they don't want to maintain them, we can absolutely remove them, just as we'd do for any Spin that was not maintained or tested.
Bill
On fös 13.des 2013 17:28, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Really?
The KDE SIG has full access to change what gets installed when you install from the DVD. If you're saying it's releng and FESCo's responsibility to fix that, then as a releng and FESCo member, I'll fix it...
Who decided what's shipped on the dvd ?
Why do we need to continue to ship the dvd?
JBG
On Fri, 2013-12-13 at 20:30 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On fös 13.des 2013 17:28, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Really?
The KDE SIG has full access to change what gets installed when you install from the DVD. If you're saying it's releng and FESCo's responsibility to fix that, then as a releng and FESCo member, I'll fix it...
Who decided what's shipped on the dvd ?
So avoiding the grandstanding, I'd say FESCo probably is the arbiter of 'what major groups do we put on the DVD?', but it's not FESCo's job to micro-manage specifically what packages are in each group.
So it's not necessarily the KDE SIG's job/role to decide whether KDE can go on the DVD - that is up to a Higher Power - but it *is* KDE SIG's job/role to maintain the actual KDE package groups in comps. Ditto for Desktop/GNOME.
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Adam Williamson awilliam@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2013-12-13 at 20:30 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On fös 13.des 2013 17:28, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Really?
The KDE SIG has full access to change what gets installed when you install from the DVD. If you're saying it's releng and FESCo's responsibility to fix that, then as a releng and FESCo member, I'll fix it...
Who decided what's shipped on the dvd ?
So avoiding the grandstanding, I'd say FESCo probably is the arbiter of 'what major groups do we put on the DVD?', but it's not FESCo's job to micro-manage specifically what packages are in each group.
So it's not necessarily the KDE SIG's job/role to decide whether KDE can go on the DVD - that is up to a Higher Power - but it *is* KDE SIG's job/role to maintain the actual KDE package groups in comps. Ditto for Desktop/GNOME.
If both major DE groups don't care about the DVD contents because they feel their respective Spins are their main concern, then it's not entirely hyperbolic to just not ship the DVD at all. I think we're already heading down this path with the 3 product approach, so it's not something to be cast aside as unrealistic.
josh
On Fri, 2013-12-13 at 15:45 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Adam Williamson awilliam@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2013-12-13 at 20:30 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On fös 13.des 2013 17:28, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Really?
The KDE SIG has full access to change what gets installed when you install from the DVD. If you're saying it's releng and FESCo's responsibility to fix that, then as a releng and FESCo member, I'll fix it...
Who decided what's shipped on the dvd ?
So avoiding the grandstanding, I'd say FESCo probably is the arbiter of 'what major groups do we put on the DVD?', but it's not FESCo's job to micro-manage specifically what packages are in each group.
So it's not necessarily the KDE SIG's job/role to decide whether KDE can go on the DVD - that is up to a Higher Power - but it *is* KDE SIG's job/role to maintain the actual KDE package groups in comps. Ditto for Desktop/GNOME.
If both major DE groups don't care about the DVD contents because they feel their respective Spins are their main concern, then it's not entirely hyperbolic to just not ship the DVD at all.
Let's clarify before we go too far down this path: jreznik told me this was the case for KDE SIG. Other members of KDE SIG don't seem to be quite so clear about it, and no-one from desktop SIG has said they don't curate their DVD contents and don't think that package set is important. Sorry if the discussion so far has given a different impression.
I think we're already heading down this path with the 3 product approach, so it's not something to be cast aside as unrealistic.
You can see which path the 3 product approach is headed down?! Where do I sign to borrow your crystal ball? :)
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Adam Williamson awilliam@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2013-12-13 at 15:45 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Adam Williamson awilliam@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2013-12-13 at 20:30 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On fös 13.des 2013 17:28, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Really?
The KDE SIG has full access to change what gets installed when you install from the DVD. If you're saying it's releng and FESCo's responsibility to fix that, then as a releng and FESCo member, I'll fix it...
Who decided what's shipped on the dvd ?
So avoiding the grandstanding, I'd say FESCo probably is the arbiter of 'what major groups do we put on the DVD?', but it's not FESCo's job to micro-manage specifically what packages are in each group.
So it's not necessarily the KDE SIG's job/role to decide whether KDE can go on the DVD - that is up to a Higher Power - but it *is* KDE SIG's job/role to maintain the actual KDE package groups in comps. Ditto for Desktop/GNOME.
If both major DE groups don't care about the DVD contents because they feel their respective Spins are their main concern, then it's not entirely hyperbolic to just not ship the DVD at all.
Let's clarify before we go too far down this path: jreznik told me this was the case for KDE SIG. Other members of KDE SIG don't seem to be quite so clear about it, and no-one from desktop SIG has said they don't curate their DVD contents and don't think that package set is important. Sorry if the discussion so far has given a different impression.
You didn't give that impression. I was extrapolating and pontificating. It's Friday. :)
I think we're already heading down this path with the 3 product approach, so it's not something to be cast aside as unrealistic.
You can see which path the 3 product approach is headed down?! Where do I sign to borrow your crystal ball? :)
With 3 products, I don't think it takes a crystal ball to foresee that the existing DVD is either going to be changed significantly or not exist. I was leaning towards "not exist".
josh
On fös 13.des 2013 20:42, Adam Williamson wrote:
So avoiding the grandstanding, I'd say FESCo probably is the arbiter of 'what major groups do we put on the DVD?', but it's not FESCo's job to micro-manage specifically what packages are in each group.
No but it's their responsibility since it's *them* that manage the DVD ( the dvd is not sub-communites product ) to deliver the *same* out of the box experience that the live does to match the expectations of the user as the sub-community has shown him through the deliverable they make.
JBG
On Sat, 2013-12-14 at 00:44 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On fös 13.des 2013 20:42, Adam Williamson wrote:
So avoiding the grandstanding, I'd say FESCo probably is the arbiter of 'what major groups do we put on the DVD?', but it's not FESCo's job to micro-manage specifically what packages are in each group.
No but it's their responsibility since it's *them* that manage the DVD ( the dvd is not sub-communites product ) to deliver the *same* out of the box experience that the live does to match the expectations of the user as the sub-community has shown him through the deliverable they make.
So, let's rewind a bit and look at things. The main reason we have a divergence is due to space on the live images.
Perhaps the simple thing to do going forward is bump KDE and GNOME to 2GB max sizes, so they both have space to include everything they actually want in a default install in their live images, and then have both those groups clean up comps and spin-kickstarts so that DVD installs and live images contain the same package set from comps, then maintain the package set in comps in future and only make package changes in the kickstarts which for some reason absolutely have to be changed on a live image (of which there shouldn't be many)? That should make things cleaner and simpler all around. We could ditch the multiple kickstarts that each desktop currently has; both KDE and desktop have two kickstarts, ostensibly one that's CD sized and one that's larger-than-CD-sized, but this has not really been what they are for years. In fact, when Desktop finally gave up doing CD-sized lives, instead of dropping fedora-livecd-desktop.ks , they just added a few packages back to it and used *it* to build the 1GB live image. So now we have fedora-livecd-desktop.ks which, despite its name, is not CD sized, and fedora-live-desktop.ks , which was meant to be the 'ideal' desktop live from which livecd-desktop.ks would just cut the necessary packages to fit in a CD sized image, yet isn't actually used for anything...
anyhow, desktop and KDE teams: what do you think of this idea?
On lau 14.des 2013 02:06, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sat, 2013-12-14 at 00:44 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On fös 13.des 2013 20:42, Adam Williamson wrote:
So, let's rewind a bit and look at things. The main reason we have a divergence is due to space on the live images.
An restrain that the sub-community's they themselves bestowed upon it.
As far as I know they have been free to decide their own size for quite sometime.
Perhaps the simple thing to do going forward is bump KDE and GNOME to 2GB max sizes,
I would say that would be the wrong approach since as soon as you start limited things to sizes you start compromising the desktop experience you intent for the end user which is one of the underlying cause that has been giving this half finished feeling with our default desktop.
ostensibly one that's CD sized and one that's larger-than-CD-sized
It's nonsense to ship two sized images ( as well as having multiple ks files in general for DE's ) for the same desktop environment and we already have sub-communities ( xfce/lxde for example ) which advertise themselves being less resources hungry and smaller ( which would cater to the cd-sized image crowd ).
anyhow, desktop and KDE teams: what do you think of this idea?
There are more desktop environments that we ship in the distribution then KDE and Gnome and more likely that more will be packaged then not.
JBG
On Sat, 2013-12-14 at 08:58 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On lau 14.des 2013 02:06, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sat, 2013-12-14 at 00:44 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On fös 13.des 2013 20:42, Adam Williamson wrote:
So, let's rewind a bit and look at things. The main reason we have a divergence is due to space on the live images.
An restrain that the sub-community's they themselves bestowed upon it.
As far as I know they have been free to decide their own size for quite sometime.
Sure. What's the relevance of that? I'm not doing a post mortem here, I'm trying to make things better in future.
Perhaps the simple thing to do going forward is bump KDE and GNOME to 2GB max sizes,
I would say that would be the wrong approach since as soon as you start limited things to sizes you start compromising the desktop experience you intent for the end user which is one of the underlying cause that has been giving this half finished feeling with our default desktop.
Fine, then call it DVD size, call it whatever. Point is, make it so we don't have to trim the lives for size.
"2GB ought to be enough for anyone" - adamw, 2013
ostensibly one that's CD sized and one that's larger-than-CD-sized
It's nonsense to ship two sized images ( as well as having multiple ks files in general for DE's ) for the same desktop environment
We never did *ship* two images, I don't think, but at some point someone saw value in having kickstarts that would *produce* images of two different sizes. I don't see that we need that now, and clearly no-one is maintaining it.
and we already have sub-communities ( xfce/lxde for example ) which advertise themselves being less resources hungry and smaller ( which would cater to the cd-sized image crowd ).
anyhow, desktop and KDE teams: what do you think of this idea?
There are more desktop environments that we ship in the distribution then KDE and Gnome and more likely that more will be packaged then not.
But we only block releases on KDE and GNOME; we don't really have this problem with any other desktops either, I don't think any of the others have significantly different package sets between live and DVD.
On Fri, 2013-12-13 at 18:06 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
Perhaps the simple thing to do going forward is bump KDE and GNOME to 2GB max sizes, so they both have space to include everything they actually want in a default install in their live images, and then have both those groups clean up comps and spin-kickstarts so that DVD installs and live images contain the same package set from comps, then maintain the package set in comps in future and only make package changes in the kickstarts which for some reason absolutely have to be changed on a live image (of which there shouldn't be many)?
Yes please -- it sucks that I have to even think about whether I install from a live CD or a DVD. The end result should be the same.
On Sat, 2013-12-14 at 09:01 -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Fri, 2013-12-13 at 18:06 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
Perhaps the simple thing to do going forward is bump KDE and GNOME to 2GB max sizes, so they both have space to include everything they actually want in a default install in their live images, and then have both those groups clean up comps and spin-kickstarts so that DVD installs and live images contain the same package set from comps, then maintain the package set in comps in future and only make package changes in the kickstarts which for some reason absolutely have to be changed on a live image (of which there shouldn't be many)?
Yes please -- it sucks that I have to even think about whether I install from a live CD or a DVD. The end result should be the same.
"Me too". (I think ... :) )
This relates to a relatively "long" time ago, but ...
A few years ago I installed Fedora 9 (gnome) via live-CD, back when Fedora live-CDs tried to keep within the size limits of a CD. I was mildly disappointed with the result, although I easily corrected the perceived shortfalls and didn't change the image on the machine until probably F11 (and then F12 when I tried to streamline all my machines on the same Fedora version). I would say that the biggest disappointment I had -- which was actually and admittedly quite trivial in and of itself, as well as easy to correct -- was the lack of OpenOffice.org (now LibreOffice) on the CD. Once the system was install on my computer, a "yum install openoffice.org" or somesuch quickly and easily solved that "problem".
What really disappointed me at the time was that the live-CD, in trying to be a showcase for Fedora -- because after all, "here's a CD, it won't touch your hard drive, but you can see how good Fedora / Linux / linux gaming / (insert your favourite application name here) is!" -- actually failed *for me* because it was missing what to me was a mainstream killer-app, albeit due to space restrictions on the CD. (By the way, as I recall, AbiWord was included on the Live-CD.)
This was an issue at least as of F12 when the same omission (again, *for me*) was still in place, and probably with even less free space left on the CD. (Yes, I am quite aware of just how humongous OO.o and LibreOffice are, and, at least from a simple arithmetic perspective, the technical difficulties of including such a large piece of software on a live-CD.) At that time, I had done a side-by-side comparison of the Fedora live-CD and an Ubuntu live-CD. I decided that the Ubuntu CD was a clear hands-down winner for what I would recommend / give away to others. Why? They included OO.o as well as a snazzy (although no doubt relatively simple to assemble, for the technically able) little directory that opened up on boot-up with a few useful files to "close the deal" on how good the CD was, such as a simple mortgage calculator for OO.o, a few pictures, a sound / music file, and a short step-by-step video tour of the CD.
As such, since F9 I have favoured either the net-install CD (due to one of my computers being a somewhat older, slim form factor machine with only a CD drive) or the DVD if "I thought that internet connectivity might be an issue", which going in I usually knew wouldn't be, since I was also planning on installing all sorts of software via yum. Either way, a "standard" "full" install via Anaconda has been my preferred method of installing a satisfying base of Fedora, from which to start the rest of my installs and customizations.
My point to this long story is to agree with the general idea of looking at how Fedora is distributed and making sure that the product -- or the various product versions, or various media versions -- come/s out looking good, as opposed to trying to be good to everyone while not being good to anyone. Do I think that the DVD should be a good showcase for just about everything? I suppose I dare not invoke the apocryphal "640K is more memory than anyone will ever need" argument. Maybe Live-DVDs -- full to the brim that is -- will be the new live-CDs, each being a spin unto themselves. Maybe the Net-install CD ... well now I'm sure I'm just diverging toward things I don't the first thing about. :)
Thanks for reading. :)
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" (johannbg@gmail.com) said:
On fös 13.des 2013 20:42, Adam Williamson wrote:
So avoiding the grandstanding, I'd say FESCo probably is the arbiter of 'what major groups do we put on the DVD?', but it's not FESCo's job to micro-manage specifically what packages are in each group.
No but it's their responsibility since it's *them* that manage the DVD ( the dvd is not sub-communites product ) to deliver the *same* out of the box experience that the live does to match the expectations of the user as the sub-community has shown him through the deliverable they make.
Only inasmuch as they are the final arbitrer of engineering in the distro, *in the exact same way* they are responsible for the Lives themselves. There is no specific work item that lists "FESCo edits the live DVD kickstart" anywhere. In fact, it's explicitly worked for releases that the SIGs do the updates in their desktop groups - all of the KDE group changes save one came from KDE SIG members for F20, all of the GNOME group changes came from Desktop SIG members.
Anyway... this may be all moot - I'm certainly fine with the DVD in its current form going away in the new product paradigm.
Bill
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Adam Williamson -
Bill Nottingham -
Donald Buchan -
Josh Boyer -
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson -
Michael Catanzaro -
poma