On fös 13.des 2013 06:30, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2013-12-13 at 05:31 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
wrote:
> On fös 13.des 2013 02:05, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> It was clear at the Go/No-Go meeting today that KDE SIG does not
>> consider this release criterion applicable/desired:
>>
>> "All applications that can be launched using the standard graphical
>> mechanism of a release-blocking desktop after a default installation of
>> that desktop must start successfully and withstand a basic functionality
>> test."
>>
>>
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_20_Final_Release_Criteria#Default_a...
>>
>> jreznik says they consider the live image their 'polished product' where
>> everything must work, while the DVD install is more of a grab-bag - they
>> install a whole bunch of stuff, and don't think it's the end of the
>> world if one or two bits are broken.
>>
>> Given that, I propose re-wording as follows:
> You are trying to fix the problem on the wrong end thus leave the
> criteria as is.
>
> The installing should not differ ( or in other word be consistent )
> regardless if you install from the live or from the dvd the end result
> should be the same.
>
> You should have the same service enablement, the same desktop instalment
> and experience etc.
>
> So get releng to get their act together and fix that for the dvd so
> matches with the live.
Per my long reply on the other sub-thread, I'm fine with that if it
actually _happens_. But it's not releng's responsibility; it's the KDE
and desktop SIGs. They own this stuff: it's their responsibility to
choose what packages go in the lives and what packages are deployed when
you do a DVD install of their desktops.
The DVD is releng/fesco responsibility, they dictate and decide what's
on it and what not and how it's delivered not the sub-community's.
There are other differences then just the package selection that get
installed for example which services are enabled etc. compared to the lives.
I argue that we should get rid of the DVD it's an era of the past and
just provide net-install iso and lives.
Those lives should be under full control of the sub-community both in
terms of size,partitioning, filesystem layout.filesystem type, package
selection as well as service enablement even to the use an alternative
installer but those sub-community should also be responsible for QA-ing
( testing/triaging ) as well as the necessary release engineering work
to release their own lives..
JBG