Bug 339130

Summary: Image Creator is missing dependencies on kiwi in RPM
Product: [openSUSE] openSUSE 10.3 Reporter: Cornelius Schumacher <cschum>
Component: YaST2Assignee: Jiří Suchomel <jsuchome>
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX QA Contact: Jiri Srain <jsrain>
Severity: Minor    
Priority: P5 - None CC: lslezak
Version: Final   
Target Milestone: ---   
Hardware: Other   
OS: Other   
Whiteboard:
Found By: --- Services Priority:
Business Priority: Blocker: ---
Marketing QA Status: --- IT Deployment: ---

Description Cornelius Schumacher 2007-11-05 15:43:08 UTC
The first thing the Image Creator does when started is installing the kiwi RPMs. This should better be a dependency of the RPM, so that the module can started right away without annoying the user with additional package installations.
Comment 1 Ladislav Slezák 2007-11-09 12:49:20 UTC
We cannot add RPM dependency to the package, it would increase size of the default installation (due to kiwi + required packages).

The only thing we could change is to install the packages when they are really needed, e.g. if you only want to create an installation image you don't need the kiwi part of the product creator and you don't need kiwi packages. And vice versa.

Jiri?
Comment 2 Jiří Suchomel 2007-11-09 12:57:35 UTC
(In reply to comment #1 from Ladislav Slezak)
> The only thing we could change is to install the packages when they are really
> needed, e.g. if you only want to create an installation image you don't need
> the kiwi part of the product creator and you don't need kiwi packages. And vice
> versa.

But that's what we are doing - see initial report. I also think not requiring kiwi packages is better, since yast2-product-creator doesn't have to be used as "Image Creator".

Comment 3 Cornelius Schumacher 2007-11-09 13:34:14 UTC
I don't understand. Why should the Image creator be part of the default installation?

I'm also confused by yast2-product-creator not being used as "Image Creator". So you are saying that the yast2-product-creator RPM contains not only the Image Creator, but also something else?

To me it sounds that implementation details are reflected in a bad experience for the user in the UI. That should not happen.
Comment 4 Jiří Suchomel 2007-11-09 13:41:11 UTC
(In reply to comment #3 from Cornelius Schumacher)

> I'm also confused by yast2-product-creator not being used as "Image Creator".
> So you are saying that the yast2-product-creator RPM contains not only the
> Image Creator, but also something else?

Yes, exactly.

See e.g. http://news.opensuse.org/?p=478 - creating images with kiwi is only one task, the other is to create modified installation medias (see the YaST2 Product Creator part of the article)
 

Comment 5 Cornelius Schumacher 2007-11-09 14:56:55 UTC
Why don't you separate the packaging then? One package containing the Kiwi-specific parts of yast2-product-creator and having the dependency on Kiwi and another package for the generic parts. Depending on what dependencies Product Creator has, you might even want to consider creating a package having these dependencies. This would give a clean dependency tree and make it possible to install only what's needed without bothering the user at start of the module.

I also still don't understand why the product creator has to be part of the default system. Why is this the case?
Comment 6 Jiří Suchomel 2007-11-09 15:00:17 UTC
(In reply to comment #5 from Cornelius Schumacher)
> Why don't you separate the packaging then? One package containing the
> Kiwi-specific parts of yast2-product-creator and having the dependency on Kiwi
> and another package for the generic parts. Depending on what dependencies
> Product Creator has, you might even want to consider creating a package having
> these dependencies. This would give a clean dependency tree and make it
> possible to install only what's needed without bothering the user at start of
> the module.

I don't think this is a good idea. The parts have much in common.

> I also still don't understand why the product creator has to be part of the
> default system. Why is this the case?

I don't think this is the case. Valid case is described in comment 4.