"Third party repositories" doesn't indicate anything about what the repositories are or what content is included. I don't think there is anything we need to change here.

"Third party repositories" doesn't indicate anything about what the repositories are or what content is included. I don't think there is anything we need to change here.

"Third party repositories" (could) still give the user the impression that the repositories that are going to be enabled are unfiltered.

How? We don't make a statement one way or another. We don't even say where they come from.

A user would expect an option called "enable third party repositories" to enable those full repositories, and that tends to be the case, way more often than not. It could cause more confusion for them, and judging from my experience with others trying Fedora, it does.

A user would expect an option called "enable third party repositories" to enable those full repositories

That's a fair point. Really it's a small selection of software, but that's not communicated.

The current wording is extremely vague. We did it that way so that changes in the repo set wouldn't result in the description being inaccurate, but I think that the current lack of detail is quite damaging: people don't know what the 3rd party repos are or what they contain, and it's easy to misunderstand the feature.

One thing we could consider is adding a link to the 3rd party repos docs page.

Also this is an upstream page, so it cannot contain Fedora-specific details.

Well we could link to a docs page. That's easy enough, just requires deciding on some way to configure the link, which we already have for the distro privacy policy.

Also this is an upstream page, so it cannot contain Fedora-specific details.

Would it be possible to work with the upstream maintainers to allow this page to be customized to the distros liking? It would benefit more than just Fedora, too.
Also, this way, I guess Fedora would be closely sticking to what upstream wants it to be?

If it's not possible, that's fine, but I think it's worth looking into.

Additionally, should it be possible to customize the third-party repos page, why not link to the rpmfusion setup page and flathub's Fedora setup page? I don't see any potential licensing issues with that, so it would ensure the user can have a desktop that Just Works while also allowing Fedora to be clear of any legal issues.

Would it be possible to work with the upstream maintainers to allow this page to be customized to the distros liking? It would benefit more than just Fedora, too.

Sure, as long as it doesn't require changing text, because then we're on the hook for figuring out how to translate it. Much better if upstream translates the text. So the message needs to be generic.

Additionally, should it be possible to customize the third-party repos page, why not link to the rpmfusion setup page

Not allowed. This could be considered active inducement to infringe a patent.

and flathub's Fedora setup page?

We are allowed to do this.

We are allowed to do this.

Um, but there's no point, because the goal is to offer unfiltered Flathub for Fedora 38, so the instructions should go away....

We are allowed to do this.

Um, but there's no point, because the goal is to offer unfiltered Flathub for Fedora 38, so the instructions should go away....

But currently, that is not the case, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was pushed back even further.

I guess linking to the Flathub setup page is going to be the best we can get, since it has measures in place to prevent licensing conflicts (extra-data).

I'm not sure what we should do with this ticket. Any concrete proposals to amend the wording, while keeping the wording generic and suitable for upstream?

It would be good to improve the situation for F38 and if the status quo persists, then adding a link to the docs page seems like a good solution.

However, I'd probably wait to see how the unfiltered Flathub change works out before we do any work here. GNOME 44 UI freeze is on 11 February, so maybe we should check back in here in two weeks?

However, I'd probably wait to see how the unfiltered Flathub change works out before we do any work here. GNOME 44 UI freeze is on 11 February, so maybe we should check back in here in two weeks?

Looks like the action item in this ticket is for @aday to investigate design, OK?

The simplest "fix" here would be to turn "selected external sources" into a link that points to https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/workstation-working-group/third-party-repos/ .

Upstream issue - https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-initial-setup/-/issues/182

Upstream issue - https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-initial-setup/-/issues/182

Are you able to take care of this, @catanzaro ?

I'll add it to my to-do list.

This is still on my to-do list. It's actually fairly close to the top, too.

Proposed https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-initial-setup/-/merge_requests/229. Closing.

I might have been a tad optimistic in closing this....

https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-initial-setup/-/merge_requests/229 is accepted to land in GNOME 47; it's now only waiting on gnome-46 branch creation. We don't need to track this downstream anymore. Closing as fixed.