On 02/27/2016 10:06 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 08:26:40AM -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>> I think this was the plan all along, it was just that the workstation
>> groups landed late in the F21 cycle and it was too late to remove
>> @gnome-desktop at that point without potentially breaking other spins
>> that were using it.
> But then doesn't that just pass the problem off to the spins still
> using @gnome-desktop, and users that installed prior to F21? I guess
> that is a much smaller subset of users that will face the upgrade
> problem, though, so you're right, this is probably a better approach.
> (It's also kind of nice to have a separation between the GNOME
> packages, and "extra" packages, but I can live without that....)
From a high-level conceptual standpoint, I like the idea of
@fedora-workstation including (e.g. being built on) @gnome-desktop, but
being separate and additive. That reinforces the idea that the editions
aren't merely upstream tech showcases which we are arbitrarily
elevating over other possiblities. They're meant to be Fedora-focused
marketing tools, in the complete sense of marketing — not just the part
about ad copy and swag, but a whole deal where we look at market
opportunities and try to build something that will fill them.
But, that shouldn't get in the way doing what works best pragmatically
at this level. :)
This isn't the problem. We have the Fedora Workstation environment group for
that purpose. Environment groups contain package groups. Both
@fedora-workstation and @gnome-desktop are package groups.
So there's an argument to be made that perhaps @fedora-workstation should go
away and be replaced by @^workstation-product-environment entirely.