After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 760697 - modulesets: Sync with gnome-core
modulesets: Sync with gnome-core
Status: RESOLVED OBSOLETE
Product: gnome-software
Classification: Applications
Component: General
unspecified
Other All
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: GNOME Software maintainer(s)
GNOME Software maintainer(s)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2016-01-16 02:22 UTC by Michael Catanzaro
Modified: 2016-04-11 16:42 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Attachments
modulesets: Sync with gnome-core (2.05 KB, patch)
2016-01-16 02:22 UTC, Michael Catanzaro
rejected Details | Review
modulesets: sync system.xml with gnome-core (1.93 KB, patch)
2016-02-23 05:10 UTC, Michael Catanzaro
none Details | Review

Description Michael Catanzaro 2016-01-16 02:22:48 UTC
This is a follow-up to the moduleset review that's taking place on the release-team mailing list at https://mail.gnome.org/archives/release-team/2016-January/msg00000.html

Sync GNOME Software's system moduleset with the official gnome-suites-core moduleset.

It's expected that gnome-suites-core may have more changes in the near future. We can continue to update this if so.
Comment 1 Michael Catanzaro 2016-01-16 02:22:52 UTC
Created attachment 319162 [details] [review]
modulesets: Sync with gnome-core

Cheese, File Roller, and Logs have been recently moved to core.

Also, while there has been discussion of removing Empathy from core, and
while it has been dropped from the default install of Fedora
Workstation, it is still in gnome-core. Restore it for now. Perhaps it
will be removed from core soon, or perhaps not.

Also, gedit is not currently in core. Perhaps it will be added soon, or
perhaps not.
Comment 2 Kalev Lember 2016-01-16 11:35:15 UTC
Review of attachment 319162 [details] [review]:

I'd rather not mark any more apps as unremovable.
Comment 3 Michael Catanzaro 2016-01-16 15:30:52 UTC
I think we have a problem if our list of unremovable apps is arbitrarily different from our list of core apps that form of the default experience. There is zero value in prohibiting users from removing Font Viewer but allowing them to get rid of Archive Manager, for example.
Comment 4 Kalev Lember 2016-01-16 15:35:15 UTC
Right; I'd much rather allow uninstalling Font Viewer. I don't see much value in prohibiting users to uninstall something they want to uninstall.
Comment 5 Michael Catanzaro 2016-01-16 15:52:12 UTC
True, but then why do we prevent users from uninstalling anything? See also: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=760717

Through GNOME 3.18, we were consistent in that the upstream system.xml moduleset matched up exactly with meta-gnome-core-utilities, with the exception of gedit. If the criteria for unremovable is going to be something other than "it's a core app," we should try to determine what that criteria will be, rather than arbitrarily.

See also: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/release-team/2016-January/msg00008.html
Comment 6 Kalev Lember 2016-01-16 17:18:12 UTC
I think the criteria for unremovable apps should be "apps that would render the system unusable when removed", for example I would put gnome-shell and gnome-control-center and gnome-software itself in that category. Any anything that they pull in as deps.

As for how to differentiate "core apps", or more broadly apps that are default installed, I have a few ideas in no particular order: differentiate them somehow visually, so that they stand out from the rest; maybe put them in a separate section in the Installed page; maybe use a different colour scheme; maybe tag them somehow. But making them unremovable in my opinion just makes a software center less useful for users.
Comment 7 Michael Catanzaro 2016-01-16 23:55:48 UTC
(In reply to Kalev Lember from comment #6)
> I think the criteria for unremovable apps should be "apps that would render
> the system unusable when removed", for example I would put gnome-shell and
> gnome-control-center and gnome-software itself in that category. Any
> anything that they pull in as deps.

I am not going to disagree with that proposal, but it's definitely not the criteria being used currently for system.xml. Basically none of the apps in system.xml are absolutely essential; asides from gnome-control-center and gnome-software, I would only add nautilus... and maybe not even that, since you can always use gnome-software to install it again, or pick another file manager.

> As for how to differentiate "core apps", or more broadly apps that are
> default installed, I have a few ideas in no particular order: differentiate
> them somehow visually, so that they stand out from the rest; maybe put them
> in a separate section in the Installed page; maybe use a different colour
> scheme; maybe tag them somehow. But making them unremovable in my opinion
> just makes a software center less useful for users.

How about using the existing System Apps section for them? I think it works fine to differentiate the core apps. If you don't like my "disable/enable" idea, we could designate only a small subset of them as unremovable.
Comment 8 Michael Catanzaro 2016-02-23 05:10:27 UTC
Created attachment 321916 [details] [review]
modulesets: sync system.xml with gnome-core

Just updating the previously-rejected patch to match the current set of core ("system") apps.
Comment 9 Michael Catanzaro 2016-03-31 18:02:31 UTC
So, I see we're now using <compulsory_for_desktop>GNOME</compulsory_for_desktop> in appdata files. I'm open to other ideas, but unless we agree to something different, I'm planning to add this to the appdata files of all core apps.
Comment 10 Michael Catanzaro 2016-04-11 16:42:50 UTC
(In reply to Michael Catanzaro from comment #9)
> So, I see we're now using
> <compulsory_for_desktop>GNOME</compulsory_for_desktop> in appdata files. I'm
> open to other ideas, but unless we agree to something different, I'm
> planning to add this to the appdata files of all core apps.

Note that I'm holding off on this action; as discussed on IRC, nobody is really happy with making a bunch of apps uninstallable.