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

[Josh Boyer]

On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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 :)

Yeah, only the change in fedora-release-workstation though.  The
Requires is still in gnome-shell.  I'd like to remove it but given the
rather long discussions I didn't feel it was quite kosher to do so at
the moment.

>> 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.

I think the Workstation WG feels it's mandatory.

>> > 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.

Ditto :)

josh