<div class="gmail_quote">2012/5/31 Adam Williamson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:awilliam@redhat.com" target="_blank">awilliam@redhat.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On Tue, 2012-05-29 at 16:50 -0400, Tom Callaway wrote:<br>
> On 05/29/2012 04:46 PM, Corey Richardson wrote:<br>
> > I've heard nothing but bad things about preupgrade from lots of people,<br>
> > and I've heard the developers either never hear about it, ignore it, or<br>
> > don't care. I tried a preupgrade and it half-succeeded, I had to fix<br>
> > the initramfs and a few other things afterwards though. IMO, it isn't<br>
> > worth the pain.<br>
><br>
> We do test preupgrade as part of the pre-release testing. The problem is<br>
> that people do all sorts of wacky things to their systems that cause it<br>
> to not work well. I'm sure that QA would love to have more people<br>
> testing preupgrade during the beta->RC window.<br>
><br>
> So, your statement that devs don't care isn't valid. It may still not be<br>
> worth the pain, depending on how much you have installed outside of the<br>
> Fedora Package universe.<br>
<br>
Not entirely valid, but if we're being completely honest, there is only<br>
one preupgrade maintainer - hughsie - and he has a couple of other<br>
full-time jobs. So I think it's fair to say it doesn't get as much<br>
active maintenance as it might. The preupgrade bug list is quite long -<br>
127 bugs, <a href="http://bugz.fedoraproject.org/preupgrade" target="_blank">http://bugz.fedoraproject.org/preupgrade</a> - and I know for a<br>
fact it contains quite a few valid reports which could be fixed<br>
by...development.<br>
<br>
Your broader point is of course also true. upgrading is a fundamentally<br>
unsupportable operation: the amount of variables in play when it comes<br>
to upgrading a system which a person has been using, normally, for some<br>
time is so huge as to be probably incalculable. What we test in a<br>
programmed way is that you can do a clean installation of F16, update it<br>
to current packages, then run 'preupgrade' and wind up with an F17<br>
system that boots. That is the extent of the preupgrade validation<br>
testing. Any further testing relies on people trying it and filing bugs,<br>
as Tom says.<br>
<br>
The particular failure scenario involved here - 'user let<br>
SOME_THIRD_PARTY_THING screw up RPM-managed files' - is obviously quite<br>
a long way down the list of things we're going to care about. There has<br>
to be a limit to what we can achieve with the resources available to a<br>
project like Fedora. We don't have a 2,000 system test lab stashed away<br>
somewhere with a few hundred people in it running upgrade tests in<br>
various arbitrary scenarios, 24 hours a day. We just don't. All we can<br>
do is ask people to test and file bugs prior to release, and I think we<br>
certainly do enough of that...<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">--<br>
Adam Williamson<br>
Fedora QA Community Monkey<br>
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | <a href="http://identi.ca" target="_blank">identi.ca</a>: adamwfedora<br>
<a href="http://www.happyassassin.net" target="_blank">http://www.happyassassin.net</a><br>
<br>
--<br>
devel mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:devel@lists.fedoraproject.org">devel@lists.fedoraproject.org</a><br>
<a href="https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel" target="_blank">https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel</a></font></span></blockquote></div>
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
</style>
<p style="margin-bottom:0cm">I would like to share my experience about upgrading from Fedora 16 to 17 a quiet number of machines.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0cm">100% percenteage computer base have
putted my hands on, had problems during the upgrade from Fedora 16 to
17.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0cm">Which problems? First of all, the most
happening error (~80%) is after preupgrade-anaconda upgrade. Once the
installation of fc17 packages has finished, at reboot, grub2 still had Fedora 16
kernels. To fix that you had to start one of those kernels (and
conseguentely having a kernel panic when doing a system restart) and do a
grub2-mkconfig /boot/grub2/grub.cfg On most cases, it fixed the
problem, but not every single time.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0cm"><a name="comment_text_0"></a>Second bug
I found out: during anaconda system upgrade, it freezed on upgrading
package "steel bank common lisp". To finish the upgrade I
had to reboot and let it start again.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0cm">Third bug: after preupgrade finished to
download fc17 packages, I rebooted, but grub did not have a “upgrade
system” entry. So the computer is not upgradable with preupgrade.</p><p style="margin-bottom:0cm">In these hours, bugzilla is being full of reports like these...<br></p>So now, developers say that they need more people to do beta testing, but my question is: if at least 80% userbase had troubles with grub showing old kernels, is it possible that nobody of testers had this problem? I really don't think so.