+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #588483 +++

Description of problem:
Minimal+gnome installation doesn't install X server

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
13 beta

How reproducible:


Steps to Reproduce:
1. Start install
2. Choose Minimal+Customise Now+Select Gnome
3. 
  
Actual results:
Reboot post install shows blank screen

Expected results:
Graphical login

Additional info:
Choosing minimal install then adding gnome with Customise Now fails to install an X server - this then means that the initial boot "fails" just leaving a blank screen.

In fact console logins are available if one switches VTs

I'd sort-of expect that gnome would depend on enough X to actually get a login screen presented on initial boot.

--- Additional comment from rstrode on 2010-05-04 12:33:32 EDT ---

What exactly did you click when you selected "Gnome" ?

There is no one GNOME package, and we don't have any groups called "GNOME" as far as I know (We have some desktop groups that will pull in GNOME though).

--- Additional comment from jkeating on 2010-05-04 12:52:29 EDT ---

This is by design.  The gnome desktop group includes the packages necessary to run gnome, but doesn't necessarily include packages to run it /locally/.  You can ssh in with forwarded X11 and run gnome on a remote X host.  In order to be able to run it locally, you must also select the Base X group.

--- Additional comment from paul on 2010-05-04 17:12:09 EDT ---

> What exactly did you click when you selected "Gnome" ?
Desktop environments, then Gnome (desktop) - but I think Jesse has a handle on what happened....

> This is by design

OK, but if you don't select the base X group the install apparently "fails" because the only thing you see on initial boot is a blank screen, not a console login.

It might be intentional but, to my mind at least, I /did/ expect minimal+"gnome desktop"to install just enough for a local graphical login plus a local gnome desktop.

--- Additional comment from herrold on 2010-05-04 17:26:12 EDT ---

heh -- that would be Debian's: Suggests    ;)

--- Additional comment from jkeating on 2010-05-04 17:44:29 EDT ---

Getting nothing but a blank screen does indeed sound like a bug.  You should have been given the text login prompt.  If you can reproduce, please file that as a separate bug.

--- Additional comment from rstrode on 2010-05-04 21:42:13 EDT ---

Well there are potentially two bugs here:

1) anaconda puts runlevel 5 in inittab even when X server isn't installed (or maybe GDM doesn't Requires: Xorg ?)
2) Niche case of GNOME but-no-X is trumping slightly less niche case of "minimal GNOME install"

--- Additional comment from notting on 2010-05-05 11:44:37 EDT ---

anaconda sets runlevel 5 based on the presence of a display manager.

The display managers do not require the server.

--- Additional comment from rstrode on 2010-05-05 18:43:41 EDT ---

alright, so we've got to figure out whether the fix for 1) is:

- Make anaconda set runlevel 5 based on the presence of a display manager AND the presence of a X server
or
- Make GDM require X

If we go for the latter option we fix 2) as a side-effect

We could go for both, I suppose. CHRIS LUMENS do you have thoughts?

--- Additional comment from clumens on 2010-05-06 10:53:48 EDT ---

> - Make anaconda set runlevel 5 based on the presence of a display manager AND
> the presence of a X server

Are there valid reasons for running in runlevel 5 without having an X server installed?  Are there other programs that provide the same functionality as the X server that will require a broader test than just checking for xorg-x11-server (or whatever) in the transaction set?

Are there valid reasons for installing GDM but not an X server?

I'm fine with either fix, and I can see reasons for doing it both ways.

--- Additional comment from notting on 2010-05-06 12:30:32 EDT ---

IMO...

- runlevel 5 by default with X server *and* display manager == valid
- runlevel 5 by default with display manager only == invalid
- runlevel 5 by default with X server only == invalid

- install with X server and display manager == valid
- install with display manager only == valid (remote terminal/client server)
- install with X server only == valid, if sort of pointless.

--- Additional comment from clumens on 2010-05-11 17:19:31 EDT ---

> - runlevel 5 by default with X server *and* display manager == valid
> - runlevel 5 by default with display manager only == invalid
> - runlevel 5 by default with X server only == invalid
> 
> - install with X server and display manager == valid
> - install with display manager only == valid (remote terminal/client server)
> - install with X server only == valid, if sort of pointless.    

This sounds like you prefer an anaconda solution, then.

--- Additional comment from notting on 2010-05-11 18:08:55 EDT ---

Created an attachment (id=413275)
patch

Something like the attached, I suspect.

--- Additional comment from clumens on 2010-05-11 19:29:21 EDT ---

Looks reasonable to me.  Feel free to commit to master, or send to anaconda-devel-list if you really want to go crazy with the process.  But consider this my ACK.