> > > 'The installer must be able to install each of the release
> > > blocking
> > > desktops, as well as the minimal package set, with each supported
> > > installation method'
> >
> > The discussion died off, this is the latest proposal. If there are
> > no more proposed changes in wording or g
On Tue, 2012-09-25 at 12:46 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote:
> > Thanks. Current version:
> >
> > 'The installer must be able to install each of the release blocking
> > desktops, as well as the minimal package set, with each supported
> > installation method'
>
> The discussion died off, this is the la
> Thanks. Current version:
>
> 'The installer must be able to install each of the release blocking
> desktops, as well as the minimal package set, with each supported
> installation method'
The discussion died off, this is the latest proposal. If there are no more
proposed changes in wording or
Adam Williamson (awill...@redhat.com) said:
> On Mon, 2012-09-17 at 22:38 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > drago01 (drag...@gmail.com) said:
> > > > There is no default 'package set' now (by design, it's not a bug).
> > >
> > > This *is* a bug IMO. We should have reasonable defaults and allow t
On Tue, 2012-09-18 at 04:25 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote:
> > > 'The installer must be able to install each of the release blocking
> > > desktops, as well as the minimal package set, for each supported
> > > installation method (DVD, live, netinst, PXE, ...)'
> > >
> > > Comments please.
> >
> > I'm
On 18/09/12 03:38, Bill Nottingham wrote:
If the user can't make a choice, they should be using a live image, IMO;
the entire point of the DVD install has always been that it provided
a choice of things for the user to install.
For the end user, those that know, will know what to do.
Those who
On 09/18/2012 02:38 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
If the user can't make a choice, they should be using a live image, IMO;
the entire point of the DVD install has always been that it provided
a choice of things for the user to install. Instead of the prior DVD,
which offered a variety of co-dependen
On 09/18/2012 06:01 AM, drago01 wrote:
Stop trolling please.
I should rather say that you should stop trolling
JBG
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Kamil Paral wrote:
>> Sure but what's wrong with providing a default choice? It does not
>> conflict with the goal of providing a choice.
>> The user is still free to uncheck the checkbox if he really knows
>> what
>> he is doing.
>
> I agree. There would be no do
> > 'The installer must be able to install each of the release blocking
> > desktops, as well as the minimal package set, for each supported
> > installation method (DVD, live, netinst, PXE, ...)'
> >
> > Comments please.
>
> I'm fine with that except I'd just drop the "(DVD, live, netinst,
> PXE
> Sure but what's wrong with providing a default choice? It does not
> conflict with the goal of providing a choice.
> The user is still free to uncheck the checkbox if he really knows
> what
> he is doing.
I agree. There would be no downside to having GNOME Desktop selected by
default, just a fe
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:38 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> drago01 (drag...@gmail.com) said:
>> > There is no default 'package set' now (by design, it's not a bug).
>>
>> This *is* a bug IMO. We should have reasonable defaults and allow the
>> user to change them if he wants. But we should not forc
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 1:32 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
wrote:
> On 09/17/2012 10:28 PM, drago01 wrote:
>
> This *is* a bug IMO. We should have reasonable defaults and allow the
> user to change them if he wants.
>
>
> There is no point in having defaults now that GnomeOS is coming to be.
>
> Fin
On Mon, 2012-09-17 at 22:38 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> drago01 (drag...@gmail.com) said:
> > > There is no default 'package set' now (by design, it's not a bug).
> >
> > This *is* a bug IMO. We should have reasonable defaults and allow the
> > user to change them if he wants. But we should n
drago01 (drag...@gmail.com) said:
> > There is no default 'package set' now (by design, it's not a bug).
>
> This *is* a bug IMO. We should have reasonable defaults and allow the
> user to change them if he wants. But we should not force the user to
> make choices that way. A user would have to k
On 09/17/2012 10:28 PM, drago01 wrote:
This*is* a bug IMO. We should have reasonable defaults and allow the
user to change them if he wants.
There is no point in having defaults now that GnomeOS is coming to be.
Finally the distribution can be free from the shackles of the Gnome
project and
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Petr Schindler wrote:
> On Čt, 2012-09-06 at 09:57 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On 2012-09-06 0:59, Kamil Paral wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> Because of changes in package set selection in new anaconda, I
>> >> propose
>> >> to amend the alpha criterion:
>> >>
>
On Mon, 2012-09-17 at 12:47 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote:
> After a discussion at the QA meeting [1], there are a few proposals:
>
> 'The installer must be able to (successfully) install all
> release-blocking desktops for each supported installation method (DVD,
> live, netinst, PXE, ...)'
>
> To cl
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 12:47:11 -0400,
Kamil Paral wrote:
After a discussion at the QA meeting [1], there are a few proposals:
'The installer must be able to (successfully) install any release-blocking
desktops for each supported installation method (DVD, live, netinst, PXE, ...)'
or
In t
After a discussion at the QA meeting [1], there are a few proposals:
'The installer must be able to (successfully) install all release-blocking
desktops for each supported installation method (DVD, live, netinst, PXE, ...)'
To clarify that we don't require to be able to install all of them at th
On 09/11/2012 04:58 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On 2012-09-11 5:52, Petr Schindler wrote:
> Maybe we should say:
> 'The installer must be able to (successfully) install *all
> release-blocking desktops* for each supported installation method
> (DVD, live, netinst, PXE, ...)'
I think that's bett
On 2012-09-11 5:52, Petr Schindler wrote:
> Maybe we should say:
> 'The installer must be able to (successfully) install *all
> release-blocking desktops* for each supported installation method
> (DVD, live, netinst, PXE, ...)'
I think that's better, if we assume the new behaviour in anaconda i
On Čt, 2012-09-06 at 09:57 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On 2012-09-06 0:59, Kamil Paral wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Because of changes in package set selection in new anaconda, I
> >> propose
> >> to amend the alpha criterion:
> >>
> >> 'The installer must be able to complete package installation
On 09/08/2012 03:45 AM, David Timms wrote:
So does that mean: "if you don't choose something, then you can't begin
the install process" ?
Yes the has to select few things before he can proceed with install.
Like what he is going to install, to which hd he's going to install to etc.
JBG
--
tes
On 07/09/12 03:47, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> There *are no more groups that are installed by default*. Yes, the groups
> exist, and are used in the installer to help define things that can be
> installed, but none of them are selected by default any more in an
> interactive installation. In the inte
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" (johan...@gmail.com) said:
> On 09/06/2012 01:02 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> >"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" (johan...@gmail.com) said:
> >>On 09/06/2012 09:40 AM, Kamil Paral wrote:
> >>>Johann, I don't really understand your point. The term 'default package
> >>>set' no longer
On 2012-09-06 0:59, Kamil Paral wrote:
Hi,
Because of changes in package set selection in new anaconda, I
propose
to amend the alpha criterion:
'The installer must be able to complete package installation with
the
default package set for each supported installation method'
to:
'The installe
On 09/06/2012 01:02 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" (johan...@gmail.com) said:
On 09/06/2012 09:40 AM, Kamil Paral wrote:
Johann, I don't really understand your point. The term 'default package set' no
longer exists in Fedora 18.
Unless yum "groups" have been removed in F1
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" (johan...@gmail.com) said:
> On 09/06/2012 09:40 AM, Kamil Paral wrote:
> >Johann, I don't really understand your point. The term 'default package set'
> >no longer exists in Fedora 18.
> >
>
> Unless yum "groups" have been removed in F18 I dont see how the term
> "defaul
On 09/06/2012 09:40 AM, Kamil Paral wrote:
Johann, I don't really understand your point. The term 'default package set' no
longer exists in Fedora 18.
Unless yum "groups" have been removed in F18 I dont see how the term
"default package set" can no longer exist and no longer apply...
JBG
-
> > To be as broad as possible is nice, but for now, there is nothing
> > like
> > 'default package set', you have to choose some, so the amending of
> > this
> > criterion is necessary.
>
> No it's not.
Johann, I don't really understand your point. The term 'default package set' no
longer exist
On 09/06/2012 09:01 AM, Petr Schindler wrote:
The good reason for this change is that we need to test our blocking
desktops (Gnome, KDE), so it would be nice if anaconda could install
them in alpha. We don't need any minimal system or web server. For the
start we just need a working desktop for t
On Čt, 2012-09-06 at 08:45 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 09/06/2012 07:21 AM, Petr Schindler wrote:
> > Please, let me know if you have some suggestions or objections.
>
> Please keep it
>
> 'The installer must be able to complete package installation with the
> default package set f
On 09/06/2012 07:21 AM, Petr Schindler wrote:
Please, let me know if you have some suggestions or objections.
Please keep it
'The installer must be able to complete package installation with the
default package set for each supported installation method'
We are try to be as broad as possible
> Hi,
>
> Because of changes in package set selection in new anaconda, I
> propose
> to amend the alpha criterion:
>
> 'The installer must be able to complete package installation with the
> default package set for each supported installation method'
>
> to:
>
> 'The installer must be able to i
Hi,
Because of changes in package set selection in new anaconda, I propose
to amend the alpha criterion:
'The installer must be able to complete package installation with the
default package set for each supported installation method'
to:
'The installer must be able to install the default deskt
36 matches
Mail list logo
