Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

rename iso_graphical to iso_plasma5 #66640

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jan 27, 2020
Merged

Conversation

worldofpeace
Copy link
Contributor

@worldofpeace worldofpeace commented Aug 14, 2019

Motivation for this change

In the upcoming possibility of there being an iso_graphical_gnome3 renaming iso_graphical
to iso_graphical_plasma5 is needed because there could be multiple iso_graphical's.

I've been informed that changing this will require updating the channel generation script and website.
Please merge with

Things done
  • Tested using sandboxing (nix.useSandbox on NixOS, or option sandbox in nix.conf on non-NixOS)
  • Built on platform(s)
    • NixOS
    • macOS
    • other Linux distributions
  • Tested via one or more NixOS test(s) if existing and applicable for the change (look inside nixos/tests)
  • Tested compilation of all pkgs that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nix-review --run "nix-review wip"
  • Tested execution of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
  • Determined the impact on package closure size (by running nix path-info -S before and after)
  • Ensured that relevant documentation is up to date
  • Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

worldofpeace added a commit to worldofpeace/nixos-channel-scripts that referenced this pull request Aug 14, 2019
worldofpeace added a commit to worldofpeace/nixos-homepage that referenced this pull request Aug 14, 2019
@worldofpeace worldofpeace removed the request for review from jtojnar August 14, 2019 20:46
@worldofpeace worldofpeace changed the title rename iso_graphical to iso_graphical_plasma5, refresh gnome3 iso rename iso_graphical to iso_graphical_plasma5 Aug 14, 2019
Copy link
Member

@samueldr samueldr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍 for the more specific name.

@edolstra
Copy link
Member

Not in favor of this because it's sufficient to provide 1 graphical ISO and this would open the floodgates to ISOs for every desktop environment out there. Also having multiple ISOs makes testing harder.

@edolstra
Copy link
Member

So it would be interesting to know what the size of a combined Plasma + Gnome ISO is. Presumably it's quite a bit less than the separate ISOs.

@edolstra
Copy link
Member

Maybe ISO (and other image) generation should be moved out of the main jobsets into a jobset that runs at a lower frequency. After all, channel users don't really care whether the ISOs built correctly, so ISOs don't need to be a channel blocker.

@worldofpeace
Copy link
Contributor Author

Maybe ISO (and other image) generation should be moved out of the main jobsets into a jobset that runs at a lower frequency. After all, channel users don't really care whether the ISOs built correctly, so ISOs don't need to be a channel blocker.

That sounds perfect ✨

@aanderse
Copy link
Member

@edolstra while I definitely don't think NixOS should have an ISO for every single desktop environment out there... you had made the valid counterpoint to this (during #officehours) that gnome and kde are the primary desktop environments, and have been for many years now... so it isn't hard to draw the line at kde plus gnome, with no more ISOs after that.

Let us keep in mind that we are all very technical people who know how to work with NixOS to get exactly what we want, but our knowledge and ability does not represent the majority of nix users, nor does it represent people who we want to become NixOS users. When people in the community put an effort forward to improve the UX, especially for new users, I think we should see what we can do to encourage and help that. That being said, let me know if there is any help I can provide you with on this effort @worldofpeace! Thanks for thinking about new and potential users and the positive experience we want them to have ❤️

@worldofpeace
Copy link
Contributor Author

worldofpeace commented Aug 18, 2019

Thank you @aanderse ✨ I really do appreciate your perspective.


@edolstra

The following is just the general thoughts floating around in my head

I also want to note that someone is or should be responsible that GNOME in nixpkgs is suitable for production on users machines, and honestly has been part of the Release Engineering process.

I'd say from my experience improving this and user feedback it's extremely suitable for an ISO in distribution, I'm already responsible for GNOME's user experience. If we need policies for what desktop environments should be marked as officially supported in nixpkgs we should have that. I'd suggest a form of a group, comprised of

  • People responsible for QA
  • Release Engineering
  • Infrastructure
  • Desktop environment maintainers

And people who can be responsible for the final say like you.
This would create a great bridge of communication.

I'd also like to address the concern of people not knowing which ISO to choose.
Someone would already know this by which desktop environment they were going to use, and telling if something is better is difficult. NixOS does not have a default desktop environment, it's flexible for anyone's preferences and they can simply declare what it is they want with an option.

This is nice but adds a pretty serious level of ambiguity to users, this is why Fedora for example has "Spins" and Ubuntu's default is now GNOME but there's still things like Kubuntu or Ubuntu Mate.
Without any level of definition, to start with an ISO, I can't communicate a user experience that could be pleasant to incoming users because they simply cannot see it.

@samueldr
Copy link
Member

A random though that occurred: using a graphical iso (or session) should pre-seed the configuration.nix with the configuration for that DE. This would add value to having the additional DE, as this allows the end-user to test the DE, and have a reasonable assumption that once it is installed it will run as it did with the installer media. Though, this does imply more work to get there.

@worldofpeace
Copy link
Contributor Author

A random though that occurred: using a graphical iso (or session) should pre-seed the configuration.nix with the configuration for that DE. This would add value to having the additional DE, as this allows the end-user to test the DE, and have a reasonable assumption that once it is installed it will run as it did with the installer media.

That's an excellent idea, and intuitive.

And it looks like there might be a way put this together because of 810388a. Or at least clear how to add this.

You'd have a configuration seed/switch for

  • iso_minimal
  • iso_graphical_plasma5
  • iso_graphical_gnome3
  • sd_image?

A followup to definitely consider.

@worldofpeace
Copy link
Contributor Author

So, two months later and a nixos release... I think we could go for this in 20.03, and as stated, I'm completely willing do whatever I can to have this within my abilities. And of course with the co-operation of my peers.

@davidak
Copy link
Member

davidak commented Dec 5, 2019

I like the direction this discussion is going!

Some thoughts:

Why not call the ISOs iso_graphical_kde and iso_graphical_gnome? I think "plasma5" is more an implementation detail the end-user don't need to know and KDE is a more common term (see other distros iso name). We will most likely not have "iso_graphical_gnome2" and "iso_graphical_gnome3" at the same time, so the explicit version number is not needed there and is more confusing for users.

@worldofpeace
Copy link
Contributor Author

I like the direction this discussion is going!

Some thoughts:

Why not call the ISOs iso_graphical_kde and iso_graphical_gnome? I think "plasma5" is more an implementation detail the end-user don't need to know and KDE is a more common term (see other distros iso name). We will most likely not have "iso_graphical_gnome2" and "iso_graphical_gnome3" at the same time, so the explicit version number is not needed there and is more confusing for users.

I kinda agree, but the nixos options are

  • services.xserver.desktopManager.plasma5.enable
  • services.xserver.desktopManager.gnome3.enable

And that particular nixos configuration is what differentiates these artifacts, so I think it's best we name them by this.

Copy link
Member

@davidak davidak left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

nixos/release.nix Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
worldofpeace added a commit to worldofpeace/nixos-homepage that referenced this pull request Jan 27, 2020
And all the other things and paths to match it
@worldofpeace worldofpeace changed the title rename iso_graphical to iso_graphical_plasma5 rename iso_graphical to iso_plasma5 Jan 27, 2020
@edolstra edolstra merged commit 40f3bf6 into NixOS:master Jan 27, 2020
@worldofpeace worldofpeace deleted the iso-gnome3 branch January 27, 2020 22:34
@nixos-discourse
Copy link

This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there:

https://discourse.nixos.org/t/january-2020-in-nixos/5771/1

@nixos-discourse
Copy link

This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there:

https://discourse.nixos.org/t/considering-new-installation-approaches/17778/2

@nixos-discourse
Copy link

This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there:

https://discourse.nixos.org/t/considering-new-installation-approaches/17778/11

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

6 participants