Release criterion proposal: "Package sets" (Alpha and Beta)

Adam Williamson adamwill at
Tue Dec 23 18:21:11 UTC 2014

The "Package sets" criterion for Alpha currently reads:

"When doing a graphical install using the dedicated installer images, 
the installer must be able to install each of the release blocking 
desktops, as well as the minimal package set."

This was drafted prior to Product-ization. It has a bug - you can't do 
that from the Server DVD, and that's intended - and two problems - 
it's too focused on desktops for the new Product-y world, and the 
'graphical' restriction seems arbitrary (TUI should work regarding 
package sets too). It also is missing something: there's no 
requirement about what the *default* package set should be.

I propose we re-word the Alpha criterion to:

"When installing with a release-blocking dedicated installer image, 
the installer must be able to install the default package set."

and add a Beta criterion:

"When installing with a release-blocking dedicated installer image, 
the default package set must be correct."

with an explanatory note that 'correct' means the package set intended 
by the group responsible for the image - Product WG, FESCo or whoever.

I'm not sure whether we need a requirement for non-default package 
sets. Note that the case for offline media is already covered by Alpha 
criterion "No broken packages":

"There must be no errors in any package on the release-blocking images 
which cause the package to fail to install."

network installs using updates media don't really need to block on 
package set issues, as they can be fixed. That leaves the question of 
whether we'd want to block the release if, say, there was a bug which 
meant that if you tried to netinst KDE without the updates repos 
enabled, it failed. What do folks think about that?
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net

More information about the test mailing list