-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 05/22/2014 08:04 AM, Elad Alfassa wrote:
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Stephen Gallagher
<sgallagh(a)redhat.com <mailto:email@example.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
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
* Fedora Workstation * Fedora Server * Fedora Custom (Leading to
the traditional dialogs).
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?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----