On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Alexander Ploumistos
2014-12-28 15:02 GMT+02:00 Richard Hughes <hughsient(a)gmail.com>:
> GNOME PackageKit is still available (and maintained upstream) and is
> what I use for installing things like mingw packages that I need for
> development. Just type "Packages" into the dash and gnome-software
> will install it for you :)
Oh, that was so nice! After typing the root password to install
software, I got another prompt with "The software is not from a
trusted source". Is that a rawhide issue?
Yes, all packages in rawhide are unsigned, so that warning is expected.
Don't use rawhide if you need your packages to not be malicious.
Note that the root password was only requested because the software was
unsigned -- if it was signed by Fedora, the installation would have
How are user queries correlated to the package suggestions in the
dash? I do not always get what I would expect, e.g. when I type IDE,
I get Anjuta, Gnote and Rosegarden, with 3gp I get Frogr, Banshee,
Xnoise and mpc yields nothing.
Sounds like a bug. When I type mpc I get Kid3-qt, Banshee, and Pogo.
I know it searches the appdata file description and desktop file
keywords at least.
And a third, irrelevant question: has the "hot corner" been
or is it because I run f22 in a VM?
It's because you're using a VM.
> * p7zip, being a command-line tool, is something "normal
> should never need. If Archive Manager needs it as a plugin, it can
> install it with PackageKit if it's not detected, or it should be a
> dependency in the RPM if Archive Manager doesn't support that.
> Hunting down a magic package name to install is not an acceptable
> user experience, and not something we should encourage or optimize
> for. Alternatively, it could include an appdata file so that it's
> listed as an Archive Manager plugin in GNOME Software, but I think
> that would be non-ideal in this case, since users should never have
> to worry about having the right packages installed to unzip an
So this means that a default Workstation installation should have a
large number of non-graphical programs installed by default, or that
the various applications will be compiled with every possible
dependency, e.g. Archive Manager will pull in every possible
compression/decompression back end?
No, I think it just means that applications should not be broken by
default. Apps have the choice of pulling in every possible
compression/decompression backend (good for commonly-used backends and
backends that require few dependencies), installing them on-demand with
PackageKit (the correct choice for uncommonly-needed backends, or
backends with a large dependency tree), or expecting the user to
magically figure out what package to install (always the wrong choice).
> * But if we're wrong, and normal users really do need to
> packages, then we should probably include a graphical package
> manager so that users can actually find packages. I submit that
> improving GNOME Packages (aka gpk-application, the thing we
> installed by default until F20), something that's already used by
> other distros (notably Debian), would be a better use of our time
> than working on a Fedora-specific solution like yumex. Especially
> considering that yum is not going to be installed by default in F21.
And that could lead to more confusion, at least from the "normal
user" perspective, having both a package manager and a software
Yup. :( A good argument for not including GNOME Packages by default.
> The question is: is it more confusing for novice users to include
> graphical package manager by default, or to not include it? We're
> only talking about novice users here: an experienced user can always
> take 20 seconds to install his preferred graphical package manager
> with GNOME Software, so we don't care about what the experienced
> user wants for himself.
This is not an easy question to answer.
When I set up a computer for a "normal user" I ask them
want to do with it, so I configure third-party repositories, install
all the packages that offer the functionality they expect, which
usually includes several proprietary applications and drivers as well.
I think that's past the line of what we can reasonably expect a novice
user to handle. Proprietary apps are always going to be tough to
install on Fedora, since they're not welcome in our software center.
And novices who install proprietary graphics drivers are quite likely
to wind up with a completely broken system. This is a hard problem.
Your closing story, which I won't quote, was helpful. I'd argue it
makes a good case for shielding the user from normal packages with
GNOME Software, but I don't have a good answer for what happens when
you really need to install a package that's not a graphical application
(when did your users need to do this?), nor for proprietary or
patent-encumbered software (which we probably need to accept will
always be difficult).
I vaguely remember filling out a wizard-like questionnaire on the
first run of a distribution, that collected some hardware and user
information. There were questions like "Do you know what a window
manager is?", "Do you compile your own programs and if yes how
often?", etc.. Perhaps we could put together something similar to
help us answer that sort of questions and combine it with the
council's survey proposal. I could help with that and I could also
reach out to some of my "test subjects".
Hm, this would help us understand our current users better. That's
valuable (no reason to not do it), but I don't think it's likely to
sway opinions -- we all have our own idea about the type of users we
should optimize for. I'd like to optimize for the hapless users in your
Whether we include a graphical package manager or not (and I suspect
the status quo will prevail), Fedora will still be great either way.