[PATCH] Move captive portal to fedora-release-workstation

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 08:30 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 8:21 AM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh at redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Just a bit of an update; the new upgrade plan should be able to resolve
> > this issue without the patch (and also in a way that is likely
> > acceptable to all groups).
> >
> > We can remove the explicit Requires: NM-captive-portal-fedora from both
> > gnome-shell and fedora-release workstation, because the new 'fedup
> > --network 21 --product=workstation' command will automatically install
> > it as long as it's part of the @^workstation-product-environment group
> > in comps (which a quick inspection shows is not currently the case but
> > is a two-line change that I will submit right now).
> 
> I don't see a need to remove it from fedora-release-workstation now
> that it is already in and built.

I missed that the change had already occurred. Carry on :)


> 
> Also, unless I'm misunderstanding something, the environment group
> doesn't handle cases where someone installs Workstation, the removes
> pieces of what we consider "core" functionality.  At that point they
> are no longer running Workstation.  (I'm not sure we have a good
> handle on that overall anyway, but removing the current Requires is
> fairly pointless.)
> 

Right, I wasn't clear on whether we'd settled on this being mandatory
functionality for calling it Workstation. If we did, then the
fedora-release-workstation package should absolutely have this dep.

> > Of course, this approach has the same issue as this patch does, which is
> > that it will only ensure that this new package is added to the
> > Workstation upgrades and not to standard upgrades...
> 
> I still don't think that is bad, given that is the entire reason for
> the patch in the first place.

This was more a concern over the 'opt-in/opt-out' argument. I frankly
would prefer it to be opt-out if we could manage it, because it's useful
functionality that frankly only a very small number of people would want
to disable. But since we have a technical limitation here rather than a
policy disagreement, I'm going to stop talking about this topic, I
think.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/desktop/attachments/20141006/4c484660/attachment.sig>