On Tue, 2014-12-23 at 10:21 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
The "Package sets" criterion for Alpha currently reads:
"When doing a graphical install using the dedicated installer
images, the installer must be able to install each of the release
blocking desktops, as well as the minimal package set."
This was drafted prior to Product-ization. It has a bug - you can't
do that from the Server DVD, and that's intended - and two problems -
it's too focused on desktops for the new Product-y world, and the
'graphical' restriction seems arbitrary (TUI should work regarding
package sets too). It also is missing something: there's no
requirement about what the *default* package set should be.
I propose we re-word the Alpha criterion to:
"When installing with a release-blocking dedicated installer image,
the installer must be able to install the default package set."
and add a Beta criterion:
"When installing with a release-blocking dedicated installer image,
the default package set must be correct."
with an explanatory note that 'correct' means the package set
intended by the group responsible for the image - Product WG, FESCo
or whoever.
I'm not sure whether we need a requirement for non-default package
sets. Note that the case for offline media is already covered by
Alpha criterion "No broken packages":
"There must be no errors in any package on the release-blocking
images which cause the package to fail to install."
network installs using updates media don't really need to block on
package set issues, as they can be fixed. That leaves the question
of whether we'd want to block the release if, say, there was a bug
which meant that if you tried to netinst KDE without the updates
repos enabled, it failed. What do folks think about that?
Here's a ping on this (as I only got feedback from Mike before -
anyone else?) and a modification: I'd like to extend the Beta
criterion to read:
"When installing with a release-blocking dedicated installer image,
the default package set must be correct, and choosing a different
package set must work."
with a footnote something like:
"'work' means that the package set selection mechanism itself must
work; when used, the packages that form the chosen set must actually
be the ones marked for installation. Package issues that render one or
more selectable package sets un-installable do not constitute a
violation of this criterion, though they may be violations of other
criteria."
this is to cover things like
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1179362 , which I noticed
when filing it is a bit of a loophole in the proposed criteria.
Any more thoughts, folks? Thanks!
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net