Third party repos and command line access

[Rahul Sundaram]

Hi

Just curious -  Has there been any thought given to how third party
repositories are going to be exposed on the command line?  If someone wants
to use dnf, it seems like there isn't an easy to do this with the current
proposal.  A command interface that can abstract away the package content
format differences - rpm, flatpak would be useful

Rahul

[Christian Schaller]

Well since these are .repo files mostly I guess 'dnf config-manager --set-enabled
repository' would do the job?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rahul Sundaram" <metherid(a)gmail.com&gt;
To: "Discussions about development for the Fedora desktop"
<desktop(a)lists.fedoraproject.org&gt;
Sent: Friday, September 9, 2016 2:06:34 PM
Subject: Third party repos and command line access

Hi 

Just curious - Has there been any thought given to how third party repositories are going
to be exposed on the command line? If someone wants to use dnf, it seems like there
isn't an easy to do this with the current proposal. A command interface that can
abstract away the package content format differences - rpm, flatpak would be useful 

Rahul 

--
desktop mailing list
desktop(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/[e-mail]

[Rahul Sundaram]

Hi

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 2:13 PM Christian Schaller wrote:

>  Well since these are .repo files mostly I guess 'dnf
> config-manager
>  --set-enabled repository' would do the job?
>  
Sure but then you are managing it at a per repo level and it is disabled by
default.  It doesn't match what one could find in GNOME Software.  Perhaps
that is ok since the results are different there anyway but something to
consider

Rahul

[Richard Hughes]

On 9 September 2016 at 19:18, Rahul Sundaram <metherid(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  Sure but then you are managing it at a per repo level and it is
> disabled by
>  default.  It doesn't match what one could find in GNOME Software.  Perhaps
>  that is ok since the results are different there anyway but something to
>  consider 
Would something like gnome-software --enable-nonfree be a good idea?
It would just enable/disable the relevant flatpak/yum repos as
required just like it would in the GUI.

Richard.

[Kalev Lember]

On 09/09/2016 08:06 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>  Just curious -  Has there been any thought given to how third party
>  repositories are going to be exposed on the command line?  If someone
>  wants to use dnf, it seems like there isn't an easy to do this with the
>  current proposal.  A command interface that can abstract away the
>  package content format differences - rpm, flatpak would be useful 
Yes. The plan is to have gnome-initial-setup ask the user if they want
to enable the non-free repositories the first time they start up a fresh
Fedora Workstation install. If they opt in, gnome-initial-setup will
enable the repositories so that they work out of the box for both dnf
and gnome-software.

This is a screenshot of gnome-initial-setup during a first run:
https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/gnome-initial-setup-software-page.png

-- 
Kalev

[Michael Catanzaro]

On Sat, 2016-09-10 at 18:17 +0200, Kalev Lember wrote:
>  This is a screenshot of gnome-initial-setup during a first run:
>  https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/gnome-initial-setup-software-page.png 
I don't want to add this screen. Our usability tests indicate users are
already confused enough by the EXISTING questions in gnome-initial-
setup. This one is probably the hardest one yet: "do I want access to
unspecified software I don't know about yet? Browsers, and games, but
with restrictions on use? I need to call a computer expert to help me
answer this question!"

Moreover, once you've set it here, where are you going to change it? Do
we have a switch you can flip in GNOME Software? It's not OK to add a
setting to initial-setup if there's no way to easily change it later.

I think we need further discussion on this. I don't see why we can't
just put the setting in the software center.

Michael

[Richard Hughes]

On 10 September 2016 at 18:25, Michael Catanzaro <mcatanzaro(a)gnome.org&gt; wrote:
>  Moreover, once you've set it here, where are you going to change
> it? Do
>  we have a switch you can flip in GNOME Software? It's not OK to add a
>  setting to initial-setup if there's no way to easily change it later. 
Yes, we have UI in GNOME Software to change this either way.

>  I think we need further discussion on this. I don't see why we
> can't
>  just put the setting in the software center. 
I think it's probably a good idea to ask the designers what they've
already talked about (or just run F25 and test yourself) before
vetoing something based on design concerns.

Richard.

[Kalev Lember]

On 09/10/2016 07:25 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>  This one is probably the hardest one yet: "do I want access to
>  unspecified software I don't know about yet? Browsers, and games, but
>  with restrictions on use? I need to call a computer expert to help me
>  answer this question!" 
I think this is a very good question. Perhaps the gnome-initial-setup
extra software page should spell out what the extra repositories are
that are getting enabled. Allan, do you have any thoughts on this?

-- 
Kalev

[Stephen Gallagher]

On 09/12/2016 04:45 AM, Kalev Lember wrote:
>  On 09/10/2016 07:25 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> > This one is probably the hardest one yet: "do I want access to
> > unspecified software I don't know about yet? Browsers, and games, but
> > with restrictions on use? I need to call a computer expert to help me
> > answer this question!"
>  
>  I think this is a very good question. Perhaps the gnome-initial-setup
>  extra software page should spell out what the extra repositories are
>  that are getting enabled. Allan, do you have any thoughts on this?
>   
It might be enough to state that flipping that switch does not *itself* cause
any new software to be installed, merely increases the amount of available
software that the user can choose from.