10:25 a.m.
I propose new beta criterion:
"The installer must be able to install system with minimal usable set of
packages."
There is test case [1] associated with alpha, I'd change it to beta release level.
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Package_Sets_Minimal_Package_I...
6:38 p.m.
On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 11:25 -0500, Petr Schindler wrote:
I propose new beta criterion:
"The installer must be able to install system with minimal usable set of
packages."
There is test case [1] associated with alpha, I'd change it to beta release level.
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Package_Sets_Minimal_Package_I...
We could phrase it a little bit more similarly to the existing default
install criterion:
"The installer must be able to complete package installation with the
default package set for each supported installation method"
Perhaps:
"The installer must be able to complete package installation with a
minimal usable set of packages"
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net
6:57 p.m.
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam(a)redhat.com> wrote:
We could phrase it a little bit more similarly to the existing
default
install criterion:
"The installer must be able to complete package installation with the
default package set for each supported installation method"
Perhaps:
"The installer must be able to complete package installation with a
minimal usable set of packages"
Not to be pedantic, but what's the difference in these two? Are we
actually suggesting that the default package set is *not* useful? :).
I get what Petr is going for, but either of these wordings don't get
it across to me. What I consider a "minimal usable set of packages"
and what you do may be two entirely different things. What I would
rather do is specify the minimal amount of function that the system
must be able to perform, and to me, that reads something like:
"The installer must be able to install the minimum amount of packages
required to obtain network connectivity via any supported means and
install additional packages as the user sees fit"
Yes, I realize that this criterion, when applied, means that we can't
install things like vim or openssh during such an installation, and
that's fine with me. Remote access is not a requirement, nor is the
ability to edit files (but if we want to add them, that's fine - we
just need to explicitly define what tasks are able to be performed or
not performed)
7:49 p.m.
On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 19:57 -0500, Jon Stanley wrote:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Adam Williamson
<awilliam(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> We could phrase it a little bit more similarly to the existing default
> install criterion:
>
> "The installer must be able to complete package installation with the
> default package set for each supported installation method"
>
> Perhaps:
>
> "The installer must be able to complete package installation with a
> minimal usable set of packages"
Not to be pedantic, but what's the difference in these two? Are we
actually suggesting that the default package set is *not* useful? :).
The first one is for the 'default' package set - the several GB you get
from the DVD, including X and GNOME and so on. The second is for the
'minimal' package set.
I get what Petr is going for, but either of these wordings don't
get
it across to me. What I consider a "minimal usable set of packages"
and what you do may be two entirely different things. What I would
rather do is specify the minimal amount of function that the system
must be able to perform, and to me, that reads something like:
"The installer must be able to install the minimum amount of packages
required to obtain network connectivity via any supported means and
install additional packages as the user sees fit"
Yes, I realize that this criterion, when applied, means that we can't
install things like vim or openssh during such an installation, and
that's fine with me. Remote access is not a requirement, nor is the
ability to edit files (but if we want to add them, that's fine - we
just need to explicitly define what tasks are able to be performed or
not performed)
Yeah, this is kind of problematic, because I don't really want the
release criteria to prescribe exactly what the 'minimal' package set
should include. Perhaps we should just explicitly refer to 'the
installer's "minimal" package set' or something like that.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net
8:56 p.m.
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Yeah, this is kind of problematic, because I don't really want
the
release criteria to prescribe exactly what the 'minimal' package set
should include. Perhaps we should just explicitly refer to 'the
installer's "minimal" package set' or something like that
True - come to think of it, I really don't believe that it is QA's
domain to define the task list - but it should be somebody's. What I
don't want is the feature creep of the "minimal" package set - next
thing you know, GNOME will be part of that package set. But I don't
think that QA is the appropriate place to address those concerns :)
9:51 p.m.
On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 21:56 -0500, Jon Stanley wrote:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Adam Williamson
<awilliam(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> Yeah, this is kind of problematic, because I don't really want the
> release criteria to prescribe exactly what the 'minimal' package set
> should include. Perhaps we should just explicitly refer to 'the
> installer's "minimal" package set' or something like that
True - come to think of it, I really don't believe that it is QA's
domain to define the task list - but it should be somebody's. What I
don't want is the feature creep of the "minimal" package set - next
thing you know, GNOME will be part of that package set. But I don't
think that QA is the appropriate place to address those concerns :)
Yeah. As far as QA is concerned, the key questions are 'is there a
minimal package set present, does an install with that package set
complete properly, does it boot'. What's *in* it is not really our
concern.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net
9:52 a.m.
From: "Adam Williamson" <awilliam(a)redhat.com>
To: "For testing and quality assurance of Fedora releases"
<test(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 4:51:56 AM
Subject: Re: New criterion for installation with minimal set of packages
On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 21:56 -0500, Jon Stanley wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Adam Williamson
> <awilliam(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, this is kind of problematic, because I don't really want
> > the
> > release criteria to prescribe exactly what the 'minimal' package
> > set
> > should include. Perhaps we should just explicitly refer to 'the
> > installer's "minimal" package set' or something like that
>
> True - come to think of it, I really don't believe that it is QA's
> domain to define the task list - but it should be somebody's. What
> I
> don't want is the feature creep of the "minimal" package set - next
> thing you know, GNOME will be part of that package set. But I don't
> think that QA is the appropriate place to address those concerns :)
Yeah. As far as QA is concerned, the key questions are 'is there a
minimal package set present, does an install with that package set
complete properly, does it boot'. What's *in* it is not really our
concern.
So new beta criteria should be:
"The installer must be able to complete package installation with a minimal usable
set of packages"
And what "minimal set" means should be defined somewhere else? And as soon as it
will be somewhere, we should give the link.
9:52 a.m.
Petr Schindler (pschindl(a)redhat.com) said:
> Yeah. As far as QA is concerned, the key questions are 'is
there a
> minimal package set present, does an install with that package set
> complete properly, does it boot'. What's *in* it is not really our
> concern.
So new beta criteria should be:
"The installer must be able to complete package installation with a minimal usable
set of packages"
And what "minimal set" means should be defined somewhere else? And as soon as
it will be somewhere, we should give the link.
@core
Bill
12:25 p.m.
On Tue, 2012-01-31 at 10:52 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Petr Schindler (pschindl(a)redhat.com) said:
> > Yeah. As far as QA is concerned, the key questions are 'is there a
> > minimal package set present, does an install with that package set
> > complete properly, does it boot'. What's *in* it is not really our
> > concern.
>
> So new beta criteria should be:
>
> "The installer must be able to complete package installation with a minimal
usable set of packages"
>
> And what "minimal set" means should be defined somewhere else? And
as soon as it will be somewhere, we should give the link.
@core
That's an implementation detail. It's not a capability-driven
description of which packages should actually be in the minimal package
set, as was discussed earlier in the thread.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net
1:56 p.m.
Adam Williamson (awilliam(a)redhat.com) said:
On Tue, 2012-01-31 at 10:52 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Petr Schindler (pschindl(a)redhat.com) said:
> > > Yeah. As far as QA is concerned, the key questions are 'is there a
> > > minimal package set present, does an install with that package set
> > > complete properly, does it boot'. What's *in* it is not really
our
> > > concern.
> >
> > So new beta criteria should be:
> >
> > "The installer must be able to complete package installation with a
minimal usable set of packages"
> >
> > And what "minimal set" means should be defined somewhere else? And
> as soon as it will be somewhere, we should give the link.
>
> @core
That's an implementation detail. It's not a capability-driven
description of which packages should actually be in the minimal package
set, as was discussed earlier in the thread.
Merely stating that if you're linking to what the minimal set of packages
will be, that's it.
Bill
7:37 p.m.
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Bill Nottingham <notting(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> That's an implementation detail. It's not a
capability-driven
> description of which packages should actually be in the minimal package
> set, as was discussed earlier in the thread.
Merely stating that if you're linking to what the minimal set of packages
will be, that's it.
But to Adam's point, who defines what is in @core and what it can do?
Could I decide tomorrow that the GNOME desktop is a core functionality
of the distro and commit it to comps and so it is (I seriously hope
someone would come shoot me if I *actually* did that :) )?
I guess this goes to the point that no one "owns" comps groups, but I
think someone should, and @core (and to a lesser extent @base) should
be "special" to have some defined set of functionality.
But I think this is getting *way* off topic for QA and should be a
fesco discussion :)
12:27 p.m.
On Tue, 2012-01-31 at 10:52 -0500, Petr Schindler wrote:
> From: "Adam Williamson" <awilliam(a)redhat.com>
> To: "For testing and quality assurance of Fedora releases"
<test(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 4:51:56 AM
> Subject: Re: New criterion for installation with minimal set of packages
>
> On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 21:56 -0500, Jon Stanley wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Adam Williamson
> > <awilliam(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Yeah, this is kind of problematic, because I don't really want
> > > the
> > > release criteria to prescribe exactly what the 'minimal' package
> > > set
> > > should include. Perhaps we should just explicitly refer to 'the
> > > installer's "minimal" package set' or something like
that
> >
> > True - come to think of it, I really don't believe that it is QA's
> > domain to define the task list - but it should be somebody's. What
> > I
> > don't want is the feature creep of the "minimal" package set -
next
> > thing you know, GNOME will be part of that package set. But I don't
> > think that QA is the appropriate place to address those concerns :)
>
> Yeah. As far as QA is concerned, the key questions are 'is there a
> minimal package set present, does an install with that package set
> complete properly, does it boot'. What's *in* it is not really our
> concern.
So new beta criteria should be:
"The installer must be able to complete package installation with a
minimal usable set of packages"
And what "minimal set" means should be defined somewhere else? And as
soon as it will be somewhere, we should give the link.
More or less, yeah. Maybe we should make the criterion:
"The installer must offer a 'minimal' installation option, and must be
able to complete installation successfully when this option is selected"
(note that a later criterion specifies that any install according to
earlier criteria should boot, so we don't need to specify that).
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net
4468
days inactive
4470
days old
11 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Adam Williamson -
Bill Nottingham -
Jon Stanley -
Petr Schindler