Workstation feedback on generic-release-workstation request?

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Mon, 2014-10-20 at 10:08 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 09:54:59AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > 1) You now have to release an update for fedora-release-workstation
> > every time a new package gets a per-product configuration (to add the
> > new Requires)
> 
> I think that's okay. That kind of change should generally happen as
> part of the release development cycle, not arbitrarily.
> 

Sure, but now we're talking policy solutions instead of technical ones.


> > 2) Every deployment of Workstation now carries configuration for
> > packages that may never be installed (and configuration isn't
> > necessarily small, though most of the time it will be).
> 
> Do you have an example that _isn't_ small?
> 

I can't come up with a real-world example of this, just hypotheticals
(such as having configuration in the form of a multi-megabyte compiled
data file).

> 
> > 3) From a user's perspective, if they see configuration for a service or
> > application in their package list, they may assume that package is
> > installed and running, leading to confusion.
> 
> That is more worrying, yes.


-------------- 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/20141020/47d45a56/attachment.sig>