Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next
On Mar 25, 2014 8:27 PM, Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: My point is that it must ALSO be possible to install the preferred desktop directly, without installing GNOME first. Exactly this. Installing MATE from the spin is not exactly the same thing as installing it from the netinstall or the DVD. The spin does not include the same packages as the DVD and the netinstall due to size constraints. If we can keep the netinstall, which allows people to do exactly this, then I really could careless what happens with workstation (and I'm also a happy camper, as I imagine you and many others would be too). Dan -- Can this difference be fixed with a mate-firstboot ui, ie these additional applications are recommended for use with MATE, would you like to check off the ones that interest you and install them ? --Pete -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next
On Thu, 2014-03-27 at 07:40 -0600, Pete Travis wrote: On Mar 25, 2014 8:27 PM, Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: My point is that it must ALSO be possible to install the preferred desktop directly, without installing GNOME first. Exactly this. Installing MATE from the spin is not exactly the same thing as installing it from the netinstall or the DVD. The spin does not include the same packages as the DVD and the netinstall due to size constraints. If we can keep the netinstall, which allows people to do exactly this, then I really could careless what happens with workstation (and I'm also a happy camper, as I imagine you and many others would be too). Dan -- Can this difference be fixed with a mate-firstboot ui, ie these additional applications are recommended for use with MATE, would you like to check off the ones that interest you and install them ? Hum. This is actually kind of an interesting idea. If we could somehow encode the selected groups in the live image for anaconda to pass on to the installed system, the post-install tool could becomes fairly trivial and generic. All it has to do really is a 'yum/dnf groupinstall @installed_group_a @installed_group_b etc etc', and I think that should fill in any available 'missing packages' from the repositories, for a live or DVD install. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next
Il 21/mar/2014 12:59 Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org ha scritto: On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:28:26AM +0100, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: I agree with Jaroslav. I was looking forward to have a fourth product to those three. KDE can help define what is needed for new product, what must be done by all teams, how much work it will be ... I guess we should speak more about addition of new product and don't kill the idea at the start. Like I said, I'm skeptical, but listening. :) -- Matthew Miller-- Fedora Project--mat...@fedoraproject.org I think the same, if all spins become products we can also keep the actual way. Fedora.next is a very good idea and I'm sure it will have success, but it needs to follow his strategy with three different products, not having 2 different ones and *n* workstation-similar-products, IMHO. I don't think spins are not useful, but they could be under the wing of Workstation as a sub-product perhaps. This is how I understand and think about fedora.next, so proliferation of products is not really what it should be in my eyes. Greetings Robert Mayr (robyduck) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next
On Wed, 2014-03-26 at 08:27 +0100, Robert Mayr wrote: Il 21/mar/2014 12:59 Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org ha scritto: On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:28:26AM +0100, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: I agree with Jaroslav. I was looking forward to have a fourth product to those three. KDE can help define what is needed for new product, what must be done by all teams, how much work it will be ... I guess we should speak more about addition of new product and don't kill the idea at the start. Like I said, I'm skeptical, but listening. :) -- Matthew Miller-- Fedora Project-- mat...@fedoraproject.org I think the same, if all spins become products we can also keep the actual way. Fedora.next is a very good idea and I'm sure it will have success, but it needs to follow his strategy with three different products, not having 2 different ones and *n* workstation-similar-products, IMHO. I don't think spins are not useful, but they could be under the wing of Workstation as a sub-product perhaps. Some spins won't be desktop-related. Maybe what we'd need is something like AUR where users contribute packages for Arch Linux which are not supported enough to be in the main repositories? We could have the official 3 (for now) products, and a different place where the wider community can gather to publish different images, each one with a different focus (e.g a KDE desktop, or a tailor-made cloud image for a new provider, or an arch-specific image for a yet-unsupported device, or...) We could even call that place spins.fedoraproject.org ;) It could be more open than the current spins process, allowing a wider community to publish more varied things than we have now (more spins!), and it would be up to each group to ensure the quality of what they produce, have their own release cycle, etc... -- Mathieu -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next
2014-03-26 8:47 GMT+01:00 Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org: On Wed, 2014-03-26 at 08:27 +0100, Robert Mayr wrote: [snip] I think the same, if all spins become products we can also keep the actual way. Fedora.next is a very good idea and I'm sure it will have success, but it needs to follow his strategy with three different products, not having 2 different ones and *n* workstation-similar-products, IMHO. Some spins won't be desktop-related. Yes sure, I was thinking about desktop spins. Maybe what we'd need is something like AUR where users contribute packages for Arch Linux which are not supported enough to be in the main repositories? We could have the official 3 (for now) products, and a different place where the wider community can gather to publish different images, each one with a different focus (e.g a KDE desktop, or a tailor-made cloud image for a new provider, or an arch-specific image for a yet-unsupported device, or...) We could even call that place spins.fedoraproject.org ;) It could be more open than the current spins process, allowing a wider community to publish more varied things than we have now (more spins!), and it would be up to each group to ensure the quality of what they produce, have their own release cycle, etc... -- Mathieu Why not, I would feel much more comfortable with this kind of solution or something similar than having a lot of main products. I would also like this because we could have more images for different focus, and at this point we probably should also keep only the 3 main products as release-blockers. -- Robert Mayr (robyduck) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next
On 03/19/2014 11:52 AM, Tim Lauridsen wrote: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next ? The Workstation WG, looks like a Gnome only thing, will there be at place of users of other DE's in Fedora.next ? Just create a working group surrounding each of these desktop environment just like KDE is doing and you should be fine in this future proposal JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 07:27:19PM -0700, Dan Mashal wrote: If we can keep the netinstall, which allows people to do exactly this, then I really could careless what happens with workstation (and I'm also a happy camper, as I imagine you and many others would be too). I think generic, flexible netinstall not tied to a particular Product has a lot of value and I also would like to see us keep it. I'm not sure exactly where the best place to organize effort around that would be; I know Base Design had talked about whether anaconda should or shouldn't be included, and I guess this tends towards should, at least at some level. -- Matthew Miller-- Fedora Project--mat...@fedoraproject.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next
On Tue, 2014-03-25 at 08:21 +, Dariusz J. Garbowski wrote: On 25/03/14 03:00 AM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: On Mon, 2014-03-24 at 17:14 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: Saying that nobody wants this, it's madness, totally wacky, almost all users are NOT going to put up with this is going rather too far. I think it's entirely worth the Desktop product making this possible and I suspect quite a lot of people will use it, but I don't think it's sufficient grounds for downgrading the spins too far in importance or dropping them. That language was probably too harsh, sorry. Let's try again: I think a large (or huge) subset of users will be dissatisfied with the procedure for installing alternate desktops through GNOME Software, and will opt to not install Workstation at all. I don't think this will be a surprise to anybody. As long as we still have spins, it's not really a big deal. The question this brings up then is: what's the point of Workstation then? (We have come full circle back to this question...) We've already discussed this, but to put it simply, just because we *have* both Products and spins doesn't mean we have to attach equal importance to them all, in any number of ways. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com wrote: On 03/19/2014 11:52 AM, Tim Lauridsen wrote: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next ? The Workstation WG, looks like a Gnome only thing, will there be at place of users of other DE's in Fedora.next ? Just create a working group surrounding each of these desktop environment This makes no sense ... otherwise why do the products in the first place? Products should not be flavors but specific for install targets: Server - Pick Server Cloud - Pick Cloud Desktop/Laptop - Pick Workstation Embedded - Open Phones / Tablets - Open ... Not Server - Pick Server flavor A or B or C or D -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next
On 25/03/14 03:00 AM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: On Mon, 2014-03-24 at 17:14 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: Saying that nobody wants this, it's madness, totally wacky, almost all users are NOT going to put up with this is going rather too far. I think it's entirely worth the Desktop product making this possible and I suspect quite a lot of people will use it, but I don't think it's sufficient grounds for downgrading the spins too far in importance or dropping them. That language was probably too harsh, sorry. Let's try again: I think a large (or huge) subset of users will be dissatisfied with the procedure for installing alternate desktops through GNOME Software, and will opt to not install Workstation at all. I don't think this will be a surprise to anybody. As long as we still have spins, it's not really a big deal. The question this brings up then is: what's the point of Workstation then? (We have come full circle back to this question...) Regards, Dariusz -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 07:07:43PM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: Who the hell wants to install Gnome to install MATE or KDE or XFCE? Nobody, it's madness. I don't think anyone wants to _have_ to, but I think it would be great if we made it _easy to_ for people who _do_ have Gnome installed to easily explore different desktop stacks just like they can applications. -- Matthew Miller-- Fedora Project--mat...@fedoraproject.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next
Adam Williamson wrote: I think this is rather overstating the case. I certainly don't think (and I already wrote) that it's enough to make everyone happy, but I think it actually is what some people want. Quite a lot of people install Ubuntu, for instance, and then add on GNOME or KDE or something as a secondary environment to play around with: they want to have the 'standard product' installed, and another desktop available as a kind of alternative on top of that, or they just want to make sure they have all the 'standard' bits installed under/alongside their chosen desktop in case anything else is expecting them (the platform approach). Saying that nobody wants this, it's madness, totally wacky, almost all users are NOT going to put up with this is going rather too far. I think it's entirely worth the Desktop product making this possible and I suspect quite a lot of people will use it, but I don't think it's sufficient grounds for downgrading the spins too far in importance or dropping them. You're misunderstanding me here. My point is NOT that it should not be POSSIBLE to add other desktops to an installed system. OF COURSE that should be possible! I have always opposed any attempts at making the different desktop environments mutually exclusive (see also NM 0.9 and BlueZ 5, where in both cases I got the plans to ship both the old and new version in such a way that the desktop environments would have conflicted with each other at RPM level blocked). My point is that it must ALSO be possible to install the preferred desktop directly, without installing GNOME first. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next
On Tue, 2014-03-25 at 21:07 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: Adam Williamson wrote: I think this is rather overstating the case. I certainly don't think (and I already wrote) that it's enough to make everyone happy, but I think it actually is what some people want. Quite a lot of people install Ubuntu, for instance, and then add on GNOME or KDE or something as a secondary environment to play around with: they want to have the 'standard product' installed, and another desktop available as a kind of alternative on top of that, or they just want to make sure they have all the 'standard' bits installed under/alongside their chosen desktop in case anything else is expecting them (the platform approach). Saying that nobody wants this, it's madness, totally wacky, almost all users are NOT going to put up with this is going rather too far. I think it's entirely worth the Desktop product making this possible and I suspect quite a lot of people will use it, but I don't think it's sufficient grounds for downgrading the spins too far in importance or dropping them. You're misunderstanding me here. My point is snip *My* point is that you should make your rhetoric match your point. Two or three of those quotations were direct rips from your previous emails on the topic. If you don't actually mean those things, then I suggest not writing them. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next
Adam Williamson wrote: *My* point is that you should make your rhetoric match your point. Two or three of those quotations were direct rips from your previous emails on the topic. If you don't actually mean those things, then I suggest not writing them. I said it's madness and totally wacky to NOT HAVE THE OPTION of installing your desktop directly, before first installing GNOME. That is also what I said almost all users are NOT going to put up with. If you took this to mean that nobody would ever want to install some other desktop in addition to GNOME on a GNOME install, you clearly misunderstood me. I am sorry for that. My point is that most users WILL have a preferred desktop and will want that desktop to be the one their distribution gets installed with. They may or may not want to try out other desktop environments at a later point. (To be honest, I think most people won't, but for those who will, OF COURSE it should be possible!) Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 09:41:19PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: I said it's madness and totally wacky to NOT HAVE THE OPTION of installing your desktop directly, before first installing GNOME. That is also what I said almost all users are NOT going to put up with. I haven't heard anyone suggesting that, so it seems like a lot of madness and wackiness about nothing. -- Matthew Miller-- Fedora Project--mat...@fedoraproject.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 09:41:19PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: I said it's madness and totally wacky to NOT HAVE THE OPTION of installing your desktop directly, before first installing GNOME. That is also what I said almost all users are NOT going to put up with. I haven't heard anyone suggesting that, so it seems like a lot of madness and wackiness about nothing. In the context of Workstation, KDE (or any other DE) inclusion has been discussed as being available through software-installer. If that is the only option, then it would mean GNOME must be installed and booted into to run software-installer to install KDE. I'm personally unsure if the live image installation can handle multiple DEs. Even if that isn't the only install option, most of the GNOME stack is still required to be installed. josh -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 05:09:09PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: I said it's madness and totally wacky to NOT HAVE THE OPTION of installing your desktop directly, before first installing GNOME. That is also what I said almost all users are NOT going to put up with. I haven't heard anyone suggesting that, so it seems like a lot of madness and wackiness about nothing. In the context of Workstation, KDE (or any other DE) inclusion has been discussed as being available through software-installer. If that is the only option, then it would mean GNOME must be installed and booted into to run software-installer to install KDE. I'm personally unsure if the live image installation can handle multiple DEs. Even if that isn't the only install option, most of the GNOME stack is still required to be installed. But this is *only* in the Workstation context... it would have no effect on the KDE spin, which would still be available... right? -- Matthew Miller-- Fedora Project--mat...@fedoraproject.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:28 PM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 05:09:09PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: I said it's madness and totally wacky to NOT HAVE THE OPTION of installing your desktop directly, before first installing GNOME. That is also what I said almost all users are NOT going to put up with. I haven't heard anyone suggesting that, so it seems like a lot of madness and wackiness about nothing. In the context of Workstation, KDE (or any other DE) inclusion has been discussed as being available through software-installer. If that is the only option, then it would mean GNOME must be installed and booted into to run software-installer to install KDE. I'm personally unsure if the live image installation can handle multiple DEs. Even if that isn't the only install option, most of the GNOME stack is still required to be installed. But this is *only* in the Workstation context... it would have no effect on the KDE spin, which would still be available... right? As far as I know, yes. I see no reason for any of the existing spins to no longer exist outside of those working on them losing interest. josh -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: My point is that it must ALSO be possible to install the preferred desktop directly, without installing GNOME first. Exactly this. Installing MATE from the spin is not exactly the same thing as installing it from the netinstall or the DVD. The spin does not include the same packages as the DVD and the netinstall due to size constraints. If we can keep the netinstall, which allows people to do exactly this, then I really could careless what happens with workstation (and I'm also a happy camper, as I imagine you and many others would be too). Dan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next
2014-03-23 3:48 GMT+01:00 Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at: Miloslav Trmač wrote: When we say that there should be high bar for becoming a Fedora Product, that means that there should be few of them, I see this repeated over and over by several people. This strikes me as quite the opposite of being inclusive. (These are my personal opinions, official FESCo position is what has been voted on in the meetings, and so far does not go into such detail AFAIK.) I don't think that's the case. Fedora is obviously open to including individual packages and large multi-package projects that are very far from the mainstream. Fedora Product-like efforts can, and do, happen outside of the Fedora umbrella--the major desktop environments to date have been a typical example--and the results of such efforts can, and are, included in the Fedora universe, as individual packages, comps groups, or spins. Fedora Products involve *bidirectional* coordination with the Fedora universe: not only which version of upstream's project should we package so that we fit Fedora's schedule, but also the opposite, and we need to change $this so that that-other-Fedora-product can do something useful. Such coordination is much more practical if there are only a few Products, not dozens of them, if they have a fairly large number of contributors that watch what is happening around the other Products, and if they have consistent requirements, which is easiest to achieve by minimizing the overlap = potential for conflicts between Products. (What would we do with three desktop Products, one wanting X, one Mir, one Wayland, or one of them asking for bionic libc?) IMHO, ALL the current Spins should automatically become Products (or the whole Products idea dropped in favor of the existing Spins system that just worked). I don't think most spins *want* to become Products, with voting bodies and bi-weekly liaison discussions at FESCo; as far as packaging an interesting collection of upstream software, such overhead (useful for coordinating *specifically Fedora-targeted* development efforts) isn't helpful. I don't think any Fedora contributor should need to sign up to work on a full-fledged Product in order to have their voice heard, their work included, the work judged on its merits, or, to be more specific to KDE, to have the possibility to be release-blocking or to be visibly featured on the Get Fedora pages; for all I know, it might well make sense to feature some kind of KDE spin more visibly than the Fedora Server product. Mirek -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 4:55 AM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote: Any other DE that wants to meet the requirements for Workstation is similarly welcome. So if we meet the requirements exactly what happens? As far as I understand, all MATE would have to do is use gdm as the display manager. Is that correct? Dan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: Yeah, this idea of having to install GNOME first to be able to install the desktop you actually want is totally wacky, and if that is really what we recommend to our users, they will run to other distributions (that actually support the desktop environment they care about with a dedicated installable live image) in droves. Really, almost all users are NOT going to put up with this. You need to be really determined to want to run Fedora to jump through such ridiculous hoops, most people will just look elsewhere. And this is really true independently of the desktop environment we are talking about (except maybe things such as WM-only setups whose users are used to tweaking things by hand anyway). You always make sense. But nobody listens. Who the hell wants to install Gnome to install MATE or KDE or XFCE? Dan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next
On Mon, 2014-03-24 at 13:38 -0700, Dan Mashal wrote: You always make sense. But nobody listens. Who the hell wants to install Gnome to install MATE or KDE or XFCE? Nobody, it's madness. I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that spins are here to stay. Are spins the best solution to this problem? I doubt it, but at least it's no worse than where we're at now. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next
On Mon, 2014-03-24 at 19:07 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: On Mon, 2014-03-24 at 13:38 -0700, Dan Mashal wrote: You always make sense. But nobody listens. Who the hell wants to install Gnome to install MATE or KDE or XFCE? Nobody, it's madness. I think this is rather overstating the case. I certainly don't think (and I already wrote) that it's enough to make everyone happy, but I think it actually is what some people want. Quite a lot of people install Ubuntu, for instance, and then add on GNOME or KDE or something as a secondary environment to play around with: they want to have the 'standard product' installed, and another desktop available as a kind of alternative on top of that, or they just want to make sure they have all the 'standard' bits installed under/alongside their chosen desktop in case anything else is expecting them (the platform approach). Saying that nobody wants this, it's madness, totally wacky, almost all users are NOT going to put up with this is going rather too far. I think it's entirely worth the Desktop product making this possible and I suspect quite a lot of people will use it, but I don't think it's sufficient grounds for downgrading the spins too far in importance or dropping them. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next
On Mon, 2014-03-24 at 17:14 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: Saying that nobody wants this, it's madness, totally wacky, almost all users are NOT going to put up with this is going rather too far. I think it's entirely worth the Desktop product making this possible and I suspect quite a lot of people will use it, but I don't think it's sufficient grounds for downgrading the spins too far in importance or dropping them. That language was probably too harsh, sorry. Let's try again: I think a large (or huge) subset of users will be dissatisfied with the procedure for installing alternate desktops through GNOME Software, and will opt to not install Workstation at all. I don't think this will be a surprise to anybody. As long as we still have spins, it's not really a big deal. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next
Tim Lauridsen wrote: The most common user case would to install a spin with DE you want to use. I dont think it matter much if Gnome software support installation of evironments. most other DE spins uses LightDM, so if you want a more lightweight DE, you don't install the Gnome Desktop first and then install ex. XCFE. Yeah, this idea of having to install GNOME first to be able to install the desktop you actually want is totally wacky, and if that is really what we recommend to our users, they will run to other distributions (that actually support the desktop environment they care about with a dedicated installable live image) in droves. Really, almost all users are NOT going to put up with this. You need to be really determined to want to run Fedora to jump through such ridiculous hoops, most people will just look elsewhere. And this is really true independently of the desktop environment we are talking about (except maybe things such as WM-only setups whose users are used to tweaking things by hand anyway). Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next
Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote: One example is the policy that patches for packages should first be submitted and accepted upstream before they make it into Fedora. That policy is only a non-normative guideline (not part of any enforced Fedora Guidelines or Policies). The decision is purely up to the maintainer(s) of the affected package. This works great because that way you can ensure that once features are added in Fedora it is unlikely that they have to be removed later again because they are rejected upstream. It's terrible though if you want to live on the bleeding edge. Take for example the networking features of OpenStack that required kernel changes that weren't yet committed upstream or the fact that Docker required AUFS for a long time. In both cases Fedora was a terrible platform to develop these technologies because of its conservative stance. In both of these examples, the affected package is the kernel. Blame the kernel maintainers for their strict policies. Those are not Fedora policies. In the AUFS case, there's additionally the problem that FESCo decided a ban on separately-packaged kernel modules as a strictly enforced Fedora policy. At the time this was decided, the understanding was that it should be possible to get needed modules into the kernel package instead. However, the kernel maintainers simply vetoed ALL non-upstream kernel modules that came up do far. They do not build even the modules in the upstream staging tree! The ban on separate kmod-* packages really needs to be repealed (for modules with GPLv2-compatible licensing), and the current RPM Fusion kmod v2 system picked up as a Fedora policy. We allow separate plugin packages for any other application with a plugin system; I do not see any reason why the kernel has to be special there. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next
Miloslav Trmač wrote: When we say that there should be high bar for becoming a Fedora Product, that means that there should be few of them, I see this repeated over and over by several people. This strikes me as quite the opposite of being inclusive. IMHO, ALL the current Spins should automatically become Products (or the whole Products idea dropped in favor of the existing Spins system that just worked). Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next
On 23.03.2014 03:45, Kevin Kofler wrote: Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote: One example is the policy that patches for packages should first be submitted and accepted upstream before they make it into Fedora. That policy is only a non-normative guideline (not part of any enforced Fedora Guidelines or Policies). The decision is purely up to the maintainer(s) of the affected package. This works great because that way you can ensure that once features are added in Fedora it is unlikely that they have to be removed later again because they are rejected upstream. It's terrible though if you want to live on the bleeding edge. Take for example the networking features of OpenStack that required kernel changes that weren't yet committed upstream or the fact that Docker required AUFS for a long time. In both cases Fedora was a terrible platform to develop these technologies because of its conservative stance. In both of these examples, the affected package is the kernel. Blame the kernel maintainers for their strict policies. Those are not Fedora policies. In the AUFS case, there's additionally the problem that FESCo decided a ban on separately-packaged kernel modules as a strictly enforced Fedora policy. At the time this was decided, the understanding was that it should be possible to get needed modules into the kernel package instead. However, the kernel maintainers simply vetoed ALL non-upstream kernel modules that came up do far. They do not build even the modules in the upstream staging tree! The ban on separate kmod-* packages really needs to be repealed (for modules with GPLv2-compatible licensing), and the current RPM Fusion kmod v2 system picked up as a Fedora policy. We allow separate plugin packages for any other application with a plugin system; I do not see any reason why the kernel has to be special there. But not every change can be implemented purely as a module. This is precisely why I think the one package to rule them all policy should be changed for Fedora products. That way you can have the current kernel package policies for the regular kernel that all products by default use but the products that have specific needs can deliver their own kernel package with the required patches. As a result these products obviously also carry the responsibility for any problems that result from these changes. That would allow products to act as incubators for new ideas and technologies and when these things have matured may everntually be folded into the core of Fedora. Regards, Dennis -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next
I would like to mention that DE spins are very important with regard to the ARM7 arch. Gnome shell may or might not be working in arm so kde and the other DE spins are really important. Mostly kde from a QA perspective. As a primary architecture I feel this deserve extra considering. Arm QA is based on the KDE spin right now. Hopefully gnome will work soon, it all depends on 3d gpu support, so... depending on software rendering or open-source gpu rendering... kde is a must-have. The implication is because gnome require 3d that a software rendering situation should be happy for all primary architecture. Thanks -Jon -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next
- Original Message - On 03/19/2014 01:09 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: There is also a proposal for a Fedora Plasma product based around KDE. I'm personally a little skeptical but listening -- I think want a technology showcase masquerading as a product would miss the point, and I'd like to be convinced that this is more than that. We have an open question in FESCo over whether KDE should be release blocking (there's a ticket for today's meeting), and there's some debate over whether it's necessary for a desktop to be represented at the product level in order to be considered blocking. (And I think that this issue is driving the product push to some degree.) My take on this is: KDE should not be a top level Product. In my opinion, Fedora should only produce the currently listed 3 Products and not more. Otherwise we get back at square 1 where we have too many offerings and nobody knows what makes a supported Fedora. Kubuntu is to Ubuntu now. I really can't agree with only three products doctrine forever. That's why I personally call it multiple products initiative :). On the other hand I completely agree with high bar pushed on products. So I don't expect we would ever end with more than a few products - it's still manageable and it's the message to the community - hey, we are still pretty much inclusive distro, come and convince us, you can make it. We're Fedora, not Ubuntu - ask Kubuntu guys for opinion :). Also this high bar leads to another question - exactly opposite to the escalation of spin to product. What if one of multiple products stops to fulfil these high bar standards? I know, it does not make sense to have policy for it now but it's just one piece of puzzle... And believe me - during the release I wish we have only one product with one package and one use case and one test. Life of many folks involved in release would be much more happier :). Jaroslav -- Kalev, Fedora Workstation WG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next
On 03/21/2014 10:02 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: - Original Message - On 03/19/2014 01:09 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: There is also a proposal for a Fedora Plasma product based around KDE. I'm personally a little skeptical but listening -- I think want a technology showcase masquerading as a product would miss the point, and I'd like to be convinced that this is more than that. We have an open question in FESCo over whether KDE should be release blocking (there's a ticket for today's meeting), and there's some debate over whether it's necessary for a desktop to be represented at the product level in order to be considered blocking. (And I think that this issue is driving the product push to some degree.) My take on this is: KDE should not be a top level Product. In my opinion, Fedora should only produce the currently listed 3 Products and not more. Otherwise we get back at square 1 where we have too many offerings and nobody knows what makes a supported Fedora. Kubuntu is to Ubuntu now. I really can't agree with only three products doctrine forever. That's why I personally call it multiple products initiative :). On the other hand I completely agree with high bar pushed on products. So I don't expect we would ever end with more than a few products - it's still manageable and it's the message to the community - hey, we are still pretty much inclusive distro, come and convince us, you can make it. We're Fedora, not Ubuntu - ask Kubuntu guys for opinion :). Also this high bar leads to another question - exactly opposite to the escalation of spin to product. What if one of multiple products stops to fulfil these high bar standards? I know, it does not make sense to have policy for it now but it's just one piece of puzzle... And believe me - during the release I wish we have only one product with one package and one use case and one test. Life of many folks involved in release would be much more happier :). Jaroslav -- Kalev, Fedora Workstation WG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct I agree with Jaroslav. I was looking forward to have a fourth product to those three. KDE can help define what is needed for new product, what must be done by all teams, how much work it will be ... I guess we should speak more about addition of new product and don't kill the idea at the start. Marcela -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:28:26AM +0100, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: I agree with Jaroslav. I was looking forward to have a fourth product to those three. KDE can help define what is needed for new product, what must be done by all teams, how much work it will be ... I guess we should speak more about addition of new product and don't kill the idea at the start. Like I said, I'm skeptical, but listening. :) -- Matthew Miller-- Fedora Project--mat...@fedoraproject.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next
- Original Message - From: Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org To: Development discussions related to Fedora devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 12:59:01 PM Subject: Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:28:26AM +0100, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: I agree with Jaroslav. I was looking forward to have a fourth product to those three. KDE can help define what is needed for new product, what must be done by all teams, how much work it will be ... I guess we should speak more about addition of new product and don't kill the idea at the start. Like I said, I'm skeptical, but listening. :) While opinions differ on if we should 'ever' have more than 3 products, personally am very skeptical to the idea of product proliferation, I think that as a minimum common sense measure we should not even consider any further products before we have the current 3 products released and our infrastructure updated to handle them. Christian -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next
On 21.03.2014 13:24, Christian Schaller wrote: - Original Message - From: Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org To: Development discussions related to Fedora devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 12:59:01 PM Subject: Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:28:26AM +0100, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: I agree with Jaroslav. I was looking forward to have a fourth product to those three. KDE can help define what is needed for new product, what must be done by all teams, how much work it will be ... I guess we should speak more about addition of new product and don't kill the idea at the start. Like I said, I'm skeptical, but listening. :) While opinions differ on if we should 'ever' have more than 3 products, personally am very skeptical to the idea of product proliferation, I think that as a minimum common sense measure we should not even consider any further products before we have the current 3 products released and our infrastructure updated to handle them. I think this way of thinking about products is fundamentally wrong headed as that means that products are not independent from each other. As I perceive it one of the biggest problems for Fedora as a development platform for new technologies is that everything is tied to very rigorous guidelines and controls that tend to be fairly conservative. This is great when you care about overall stability and coherence of the platform but terrible if you want to enable people to use Fedora as a platform to spearhead new technologies. One example is the policy that patches for packages should first be submitted and accepted upstream before they make it into Fedora. This works great because that way you can ensure that once features are added in Fedora it is unlikely that they have to be removed later again because they are rejected upstream. It's terrible though if you want to live on the bleeding edge. Take for example the networking features of OpenStack that required kernel changes that weren't yet committed upstream or the fact that Docker required AUFS for a long time. In both cases Fedora was a terrible platform to develop these technologies because of its conservative stance. What I hope will happen with the Productization of Fedora is that these products will be allowed to have a more independent identity and given more leeway to do things different. I will go so far and hope that eventually these products will be allowed to have their own policies regarding packaging and for example be able to ship their own kernel packages likely to be derived from the main kernel but with additional patches as the ones mentioned above. This could be accomplished by making Copr an official Repository that products are allowed to rely on and which could be used to host alternative versions of packages. A product XYZ could have a channel XYZ in Copr and packages that are placed there are preferred over packages with the same name in the traditional repos. Anyway my point is that telling product A that they cannot proceed with their work until product B is released is pretty much the opposite of what you want to do. Instead the message should be: Want to create a new way to manage the update life-cycle of systems (OSTree)? Want to create a new way to manage better application deployment (Docker)? Build a Fedora product as Fedora can provide you with a solid foundation for whatever you are trying to accomplish! Regards, Dennis -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next
2014-03-21 10:02 GMT+01:00 Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com: KDE should not be a top level Product. In my opinion, Fedora should only produce the currently listed 3 Products and not more. Otherwise we get back at square 1 where we have too many offerings and nobody knows what makes a supported Fedora. Kubuntu is to Ubuntu now. I really can't agree with only three products doctrine forever. Yeah, something like OLPC (not packaging of existing software, but actually designing the OLPC OS) should be definitely be a Product in Fedora.next. So far I'm unconvinced about KDE--but then I haven't seen the proposal :) Also this high bar leads to another question - exactly opposite to the escalation of spin to product. What if one of multiple products stops to fulfil these high bar standards? When we say that there should be high bar for becoming a Fedora Product, that means that there should be few of them, with resources commensurate with the significant attention such products will receive. I'm afraid it doesn't imply high bar of quality--we have way too many small regressions and unfixed bugs in the shipped product to claim that, and within a volunteer organization, no practical way to change that. Yes, the situation of having too few contributors or really bad quality of a Product could happen--and in such a situation it would be perfectly reasonable to drop that Product. OTOH when I see how much some motivated *individuals* can accomplish, we don't need *that* many to keep the products presentable, and I'm not worried that the primary Products will be *that* starved for manpower and attention any time soon. Mirek -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next
2014-03-21 14:46 GMT+01:00 Dennis Jacobfeuerborn denni...@conversis.de: As I perceive it one of the biggest problems for Fedora as a development platform for new technologies is that everything is tied to very rigorous guidelines and controls that tend to be fairly conservative. This is great when you care about overall stability and coherence of the platform but terrible if you want to enable people to use Fedora as a platform to spearhead new technologies. One example is the policy that patches for packages should first be submitted and accepted upstream before they make it into Fedora. This works great because that way you can ensure that once features are added in Fedora it is unlikely that they have to be removed later again because they are rejected upstream. It's terrible though if you want to live on the bleeding edge. Take for example the networking features of OpenStack that required kernel changes that weren't yet committed upstream or the fact that Docker required AUFS for a long time. In both cases Fedora was a terrible platform to develop these technologies because of its conservative stance. Well, a distribution is an *integration* project. Everyone is perfectly free to replace individual components with HEAD checkouts, or the equivalent copr RPMs, to be able to develop such bleeding-edge software; but that doesn't automatically mean that the millions of Fedora users should have the same bleeding-edge software imposed on them just so that the developers of that specific project have an easier time. For users, Fedora really should include and promote software that is *past*the bleeding-edge state, something that we can honestly recommend to the end-users as safe and practical to use. That does tend to rule out major out-of-tree patches, especially for kernel, and especially especially for union filesystems, which have a multi-decade history of being created out-of-tree and never becoming good enough to include in the mainline. For developers, the current work of enabling copr and other related activities should make the developers' life easier without impacting the end users. That said, I do think we should not be hostile to small Fedora-specific patches that include the *integration* of the distribution. What I hope will happen with the Productization of Fedora is that these products will be allowed to have a more independent identity and given more leeway to do things different. I will go so far and hope that eventually these products will be allowed to have their own policies regarding packaging and for example be able to ship their own kernel packages likely to be derived from the main kernel but with additional patches as the ones mentioned above. So far FESCo has had a fairly strong consensus on minimizing the differences within packages between Products--it's fine for the Products to differ in package selection, but differences in package content, while probably inevitable, should be minimized. Anyway my point is that telling product A that they cannot proceed with their work until product B is released is pretty much the opposite of what you want to do. That's not the F21 situation: what has been considered is that no new products (not targeted at any particular one) could proceed until we know that the infrastructure for *all* projects is workable (with the current three products serving as guinea pigs, thinking that we do need *some*guinea pigs but having more is not useful). Instead the message should be: Want to create a new way to manage the update life-cycle of systems (OSTree)? Want to create a new way to manage better application deployment (Docker)? Build a Fedora product as Fedora can provide you with a solid foundation for whatever you are trying to accomplish! Well, the Fedora Products do need t*o still be Fedora*. We shouldn't end up in the other extreme position of Fedora providing hosting to dozens of software distribution projects that have nothing in common, and there is a definite balance to be struck. To me, a significant factor in the balance is does the subproject benefit from, and is it beneficial to, the work of the thousands of Fedora contributors not working on that subproject?, which would rule out single Products unilaterally moving away from RPM and ignoring the bugfixing and patching done by Fedora contributors on the RPMs, for example. Mirek -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next
- Original Message - Workstation might implement easy installation of alternative desktops in the GNOME Software app at some point. Urgh. This is just moving the problem from the installer/media selection to the software installer. Just what would we gain by doing that given that there will still be other desktops in the repos, and other spins? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Bastien Nocera bnoc...@redhat.com wrote: - Original Message - Workstation might implement easy installation of alternative desktops in the GNOME Software app at some point. Urgh. This is just moving the problem from the installer/media selection to the software installer. Just what would we gain by doing that given that there will still be other desktops in the repos, and other spins? The most common user case would to install a spin with DE you want to use. I dont think it matter much if Gnome software support installation of evironments. most other DE spins uses LightDM, so if you want a more lightweight DE, you don't install the Gnome Desktop first and then install ex. XCFE. It would ofcause be nice if you can make a netinstall of LXDE, XFCE, Mate, Cinnemon, KDE etc using anaconda netinst Tim -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next
What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next ? The Workstation WG, looks like a Gnome only thing, will there be at place of users of other DE's in Fedora.next ? Best Regards Tim -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@gmail.com wrote: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next ? They still exist. The Workstation WG, looks like a Gnome only thing, will there be at place of users of other DE's in Fedora.next ? Workstation uses GNOME as the default DE. It would like to also include KDE in some capacity and treat that as blocker. Any other DE that wants to meet the requirements for Workstation is similarly welcome. For those that choose to not participate in Workstation, the existing spins mechanisms that are used today will still be present. josh -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/19/2014 07:52 AM, Tim Lauridsen wrote: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next ? The Workstation WG, looks like a Gnome only thing, will there be at place of users of other DE's in Fedora.next ? Fedora Products will be effectively a set of add-on guarantees atop the software distribution that is The Fedora Project. When you say today I'm running Fedora, that really isn't a meaningful statement. About all it tells someone is that you're running the latest upstream kernel on an RPM-based distribution with mostly the newest versions of whichever packages you have installed. We're *not* taking that away. You will always be able to turn The Fedora Project into whatever custom distribution you want it to be. However, when you install a Fedora Product, what you get will be something more than that. It will define a minimum set of known packages and interfaces upon which other software can build. In the case of the Fedora Workstation, that essentially means that a third-party software application can count on having the GNOME Desktop and all its dependent libraries, plus the QT libraries available on the system. It provides a stronger guarantee about which set of APIs are official and see better testing. If you decide you don't want some of those things, you can remove them and the system will no longer self-identify as Fedora Workstation. In that case, it will just be the classic Fedora again. Or, you can choose to just install whichever desktop you want atop Fedora Workstation and use it (provided that it can be started from GDM, if I understand the Product guarantees correctly; someone from the Workstation WG can correct me here if I am mistaken). -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlMpiFUACgkQeiVVYja6o6OFrQCdHHR5kYuPWXHq4DII1SIePBlo /FgAoK3fTCGfU+rZOAx1VlUmbAnlYQ0p =V3AP -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 12:52:07PM +0100, Tim Lauridsen wrote: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next ? We had a big discussion about this last month. General consensus is that we don't see spins going away, at least in the near future. The Fedora products are intended to be focused more on areas of user need rather than on a particular technology, whereas the desktop spins are by their nature showcases of that specific software. We want to focus on marketing the use-focused solutions, but we also need a place for the other. The Workstation WG, looks like a Gnome only thing, will there be at place of users of other DE's in Fedora.next ? The Workstation WG has selected Gnome as the base technology for the Fedora Workstation, but it's a mistake to say that it's a Gnome-only thing. Half of the members of the WG aren't Gnome folks. There has been some talk of adding alternate desktop environments to the (Gnome-based) Software Center. That way, if the desktop spin approach isn't satisfying for you -- or if you just came to Fedora through the Workstation download -- it would be easy to add another DE to your running system. There is also a proposal for a Fedora Plasma product based around KDE. I'm personally a little skeptical but listening -- I think want a technology showcase masquerading as a product would miss the point, and I'd like to be convinced that this is more than that. We have an open question in FESCo over whether KDE should be release blocking (there's a ticket for today's meeting), and there's some debate over whether it's necessary for a desktop to be represented at the product level in order to be considered blocking. (And I think that this issue is driving the product push to some degree.) -- Matthew Miller-- Fedora Project--mat...@fedoraproject.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next
On 03/19/2014 01:09 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: There is also a proposal for a Fedora Plasma product based around KDE. I'm personally a little skeptical but listening -- I think want a technology showcase masquerading as a product would miss the point, and I'd like to be convinced that this is more than that. We have an open question in FESCo over whether KDE should be release blocking (there's a ticket for today's meeting), and there's some debate over whether it's necessary for a desktop to be represented at the product level in order to be considered blocking. (And I think that this issue is driving the product push to some degree.) My take on this is: KDE should be release blocking. It's strongly represented in Fedora, both in terms of users and available developer resources. We should make sure KDE is fully functional before rolling out a Fedora release. KDE should not be a top level Product. In my opinion, Fedora should only produce the currently listed 3 Products and not more. Otherwise we get back at square 1 where we have too many offerings and nobody knows what makes a supported Fedora. KDE should stay a separate spin with its own install media. Just as it is now; nobody is taking that away. And possibly it could evolve a bit more towards a separate derivative, with it's own home page and marketing; similar to how Kubuntu is to Ubuntu now. -- Kalev, Fedora Workstation WG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 01:29:24PM +0100, Kalev Lember wrote: KDE should be release blocking. It's strongly represented in Fedora, both in terms of users and available developer resources. We should make sure KDE is fully functional before rolling out a Fedora release. Should this (the release blocking part) be as part of the Workstation WG, or independent of that? -- Matthew Miller-- Fedora Project--mat...@fedoraproject.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next
On 03/19/2014 01:35 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 01:29:24PM +0100, Kalev Lember wrote: KDE should be release blocking. It's strongly represented in Fedora, both in terms of users and available developer resources. We should make sure KDE is fully functional before rolling out a Fedora release. Should this (the release blocking part) be as part of the Workstation WG, or independent of that? No, I meant independently. Workstation might implement easy installation of alternative desktops in the GNOME Software app at some point. When something like this is in place, it probably makes sense to make sure it's also working before releasing. But that's a future thing. I would like to see more focus in Fedora. And to me, having these 3 core Products is a good way of doing that. Instead of saying that everything in Fedora is equal, we would now say that these 3 products are the main deliverable. But even if we say that having only 3 products is set in stone and promote them as the main offering, it doesn't mean that other, existing spins should go away. I would like them to flourish. Since KDE has the man power to fix thing, if their developers agree to that, I think it makes sense to say that KDE spin is release blocking: we wait for fixes to land, and don't release Fedora with a broken KDE. But that's of course the KDE SIG's decision to make. I am just expressing my ideas. -- Kalev -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 02:27:45PM +0100, Kalev Lember wrote: I would like to see more focus in Fedora. And to me, having these 3 core Products is a good way of doing that. Instead of saying that everything in Fedora is equal, we would now say that these 3 products are the main deliverable. But even if we say that having only 3 products is set in stone and promote them as the main offering, it doesn't mean that other, existing spins should go away. I would like them to flourish. I'm totally with you here. The argument I'm hearing, though, is that if release blocking isn't a defining characteristic of a Fedora product, it weakens what *that* means. Anyone who agrees with that (or some variant of it) care to elaborate? -- Matthew Miller-- Fedora Project--mat...@fedoraproject.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
