[criteria update] Package set

[Petr Schindler]

On Čt, 2012-09-06 at 09:57 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On 2012-09-06 0:59, Kamil Paral wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Because of changes in package set selection in new anaconda, I
> >> propose
> >> to amend the alpha criterion:
> >>
> >> 'The installer must be able to complete package installation with 
> >> the
> >> default package set for each supported installation method'
> >>
> >> to:
> >>
> >> 'The installer must be able to install the default desktop for each
> >> supported installation method (DVD, live, netinst, PXE, ...)'
> >>
> >> I chose default desktop because in f17 every installation method had
> >> it
> >> as default package set.
> >
> > It makes sense to adjust it, because there is no longer "default"
> > package set. Also big thanks for clarifying what "installation
> > methods" mean.
> 
> Do we know if it's *intended* that there's no default package set, or 
> is that a bug? It only makes sense to amend the criterion if the lack of 
> a default package set is actually intended. Also, if it's intended that 
> there's no default package set, can there be said to be a 'default 
> desktop' any more? GNOME is only the 'default' in that it's the desktop 
> in the 'default package set'. If there's no 'default package set', GNOME 
> becomes simply a choice on the package set selection screen, co-equal 
> with all the others. I can't see how it can be called 'the default'.
> 
> > I wonder - we require only the default desktop (GNOME) to be
> > installable, but we have further Alpha criteria for other
> > release-blocking desktops (KDE)? That's funny :-)
> 
> > Maybe we should say:
> > 'The installer must be able to (successfully) install *all
> > release-blocking desktops* for each supported installation method
> > (DVD, live, netinst, PXE, ...)'
> 
> I think that's better, if we assume the new behaviour in anaconda is 
> actually intended.

There is no default 'package set' now (by design, it's not a bug). User
has to choose something, so we can use the Kamil's version. It seems to
me reasonable to require installation of release blocking desktops in
Alpha phase.