Hi all. As you may know, we need to create a comps group for Fedora Workstation.
The comps file already has a comps group named "developer-workstation-environment", but it contains things that we might not want to put in the default Workstation environment.
So, should we "take over" that group and change it to fit our needs, or create a new group? if we create a new group, what should we call it? should the comps group be named fedora-workstation, workstation, or something completely different?
All I need is your input regarding naming here, I'll do all the boring part (adding it to comps and making sure we don't add any packages in the kickstart file).
Thanks,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 05/22/2014 04:54 AM, Elad Alfassa wrote:
Hi all. As you may know, we need to create a comps group for Fedora Workstation.
The comps file already has a comps group named "developer-workstation-environment", but it contains things that we might not want to put in the default Workstation environment.
So, should we "take over" that group and change it to fit our needs, or create a new group? if we create a new group, what should we call it? should the comps group be named fedora-workstation, workstation, or something completely different?
All I need is your input regarding naming here, I'll do all the boring part (adding it to comps and making sure we don't add any packages in the kickstart file).
We should probably arrange it so that both the Workstation and Server products follow the same approach for dealing with comps. In my ideal world, it would be possible during a net install for us to have a single high-level package selection in Anaconda that was:
* Fedora Workstation * Fedora Server * Fedora Custom (Leading to the traditional dialogs).
Thoughts?
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.comwrote:
We should probably arrange it so that both the Workstation and Server products follow the same approach for dealing with comps.
Absolutely. Care to ask the Server WG how are they going to name their comps? I know it sounds like bikeshedding, but we can't really proceed without a name, and changing the name later might be problematic.
I think that the most ideal setup would be to have one group named fedora-workstation and another named fedora-server.
In my ideal world, it would be possible during a net install for us to have a single high-level package selection in Anaconda that was:
- Fedora Workstation
- Fedora Server
- Fedora Custom (Leading to the traditional dialogs).
Thoughts?
In my opinion we don't need to change the current Anaconda UI like you're suggesting: Workstation will be installed from Live where you don't have package selection, while Server will be installed (probably) from DVD. We can have the DVD default to Server, and people could still change it in the current Anaconda software selection, or however the Server WG wants to handle this.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 05/22/2014 08:04 AM, Elad Alfassa wrote:
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@redhat.com mailto:sgallagh@redhat.com> wrote:
We should probably arrange it so that both the Workstation and Server products follow the same approach for dealing with comps.
Absolutely. Care to ask the Server WG how are they going to name their comps? I know it sounds like bikeshedding, but we can't really proceed without a name, and changing the name later might be problematic.
I think that the most ideal setup would be to have one group named fedora-workstation and another named fedora-server.
I agree with you. I'll propose it to the Server WG and get back to you.
In my ideal world, it would be possible during a net install for us to have a single high-level package selection in Anaconda that was:
- Fedora Workstation * Fedora Server * Fedora Custom (Leading to
the traditional dialogs).
Thoughts?
In my opinion we don't need to change the current Anaconda UI like you're suggesting: Workstation will be installed from Live where you don't have package selection, while Server will be installed (probably) from DVD. We can have the DVD default to Server, and people could still change it in the current Anaconda software selection, or however the Server WG wants to handle this.
That's one approach, but do you really want to disallow the possibility of installing Workstation from a network tree?
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.comwrote:
That's one approach, but do you really want to disallow the possibility of installing Workstation from a network tree?
No. The current software selection UI in Anaconda will allow selection of the Workstation comps group, just like it allows you to select various groups right now.
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 03:04:56PM +0300, Elad Alfassa wrote:
I know it sounds like bikeshedding, but we can't really proceed without a name, and changing the name later might be problematic.
I agree, we should have matching bikesheds even if the actual color of the paint isn't important. :)
I think that the most ideal setup would be to have one group named fedora-workstation and another named fedora-server.
+1 to this. "fedora-[product]" in general.
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 07:51:50AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
We should probably arrange it so that both the Workstation and Server products follow the same approach for dealing with comps. In my ideal
Don't forget Cloud -- same situation applies!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 05/22/2014 09:05 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 07:51:50AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
We should probably arrange it so that both the Workstation and Server products follow the same approach for dealing with comps. In my ideal
Don't forget Cloud -- same situation applies!
I wasn't sure if Cloud made sense, since I didn't really expect it to be "installed" in the traditional manner.
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 09:13:14AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Don't forget Cloud -- same situation applies!
I wasn't sure if Cloud made sense, since I didn't really expect it to be "installed" in the traditional manner.
Yeah, but we'll still have kickstart files, and doing the package selection with a group rather than an arbitrary list makes sense to me, and it'd be nice to be consistent with the others.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 22 May 2014 07:51:50 -0400 Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 05/22/2014 04:54 AM, Elad Alfassa wrote:
Hi all. As you may know, we need to create a comps group for Fedora Workstation.
The comps file already has a comps group named "developer-workstation-environment", but it contains things that we might not want to put in the default Workstation environment.
So, should we "take over" that group and change it to fit our needs, or create a new group? if we create a new group, what should we call it? should the comps group be named fedora-workstation, workstation, or something completely different?
All I need is your input regarding naming here, I'll do all the boring part (adding it to comps and making sure we don't add any packages in the kickstart file).
We should probably arrange it so that both the Workstation and Server products follow the same approach for dealing with comps. In my ideal world, it would be possible during a net install for us to have a single high-level package selection in Anaconda that was:
- Fedora Workstation
- Fedora Server
* Fedora Cloud
- Fedora Custom (Leading to the traditional dialogs).
Thoughts?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlN95NYACgkQeiVVYja6o6M9vACfVRWjY+zBZpinp0SA2bhGUQuK ftYAoIX8LsPoODV0cZGjhIv9vLbunYYt =MoSr -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
desktop@lists.stg.fedoraproject.org
-
Dennis Gilmore -
Elad Alfassa -
Matthew Miller -
Stephen Gallagher