This is a clear blocker according to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria#Required_applications .

BetaBlocker +1

However, since this only affects netinst, I find it likely that this will be waved as a late blocker proposal exception (unless we slip) and documented instead.

What concerns me is that this is not just about Firefox and Falkon. There are many more applications missing and we should probably dig into the root cause and not just fix the browser.

BetaBlocker +1

Everything kparal said because he's very smart

BetaBlocker -1

Changing my mind because after investigation this appears to be intended behavior. As I said in the BZ, I understand the reasoning, but I don't think it's the right interpretation. The KDE Live ships with a browser, but the user has to select that for an Everything netinst (which is kind of the point anyway). The netinst itself is a blocking deliverable, but I would give teams broad latitude to define what they see as the right behavior within that context.

(kparal is still smart, though)

BetaBlocker -1

BetaBlocker -1

If this is the prevailing interpretation of how netinst is supposed to work, then this is not a blocker, yes. But as I already said in the bug, I don't like where this is going, because either this will inflate QA requirements, or we'll need to rework our release-blocking expectations.

BetaBlocker 0

... But as I already said in the bug, I don't like where this is going, because either this will inflate QA requirements, or we'll need to rework our release-blocking expectations.

I don't like it either. I would expect that if I install KDE Live and choose KDE Workspace from the options in netinst, that I get the same system. Anything else seems confusing to me and I consider this a wrong behaviour, even if intended.

There is a use case, why I want to install from netinst, especially at the end of the life cycle of the release, when with Live I would have to update hundreds of packages.

BetaBlocker 0

IMO only the late blocker rule matters here. We don't have to consider anything else.

BetaBlocker -1

AGREED RejectedBetaBlocker

Discussed during the 2020-09-24 Fedora 33 Go/No-Go meeting: [0]

The decision to classify this bug as a "RejectedBlocker (Beta)" was made as this is intended behavior. It may be worth later discussion about how we apply the criterion in question.

[0] https://meetbot-raw.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2020-09-24/f33-beta-go_no_go-meeting.2020-09-24-17.00.txt

The following votes have been closed:

• Rejected BetaBlocker (+0, 2, -4)
  • 0 by kparal, lruzicka
  • -1 by bcotton, kevin, mohanboddu, catanzaro

Release F33 is no longer tracked by BlockerBugs, closing this ticket.