[Fedora QA] #116: Clarify https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Mediakit_FileConflicts to say that explicit Conflicts: are acceptable

[Fedora QA]

#116: Clarify https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Mediakit_FileConflicts
to say that explicit Conflicts: are acceptable
-----------------------+----------------------------------------------------
  Reporter:  adamwill  |       Owner:  rhe     
      Type:  defect    |      Status:  reopened
  Priority:  major     |   Milestone:          
 Component:  Wiki      |     Version:          
Resolution:            |    Keywords:          
-----------------------+----------------------------------------------------
Changes (by jlaska):

 * cc: clumens, jwrdegoede (added)

Comment:

 Replying to [comment:4 adamwill]:
 > I think we could stand to re-assess the desired behaviour here.
 >
 > Rui, James - are you aware of exactly how the installer behaves in all
 conflicting package cases? We have a few things to establish here:
 >
 > * What does anaconda do if packages within any of the pre-defined
 install groups have undeclared file conflicts?

 How do you mean "pre-defined"?  Do you mean comps.xml groups, or the
 install groups shown on the reposetup step in the installer (Desktop,
 server, minimal etc...).  I suspect you mean the list of install
 variants/flavors on the reposetup installer screen.

 As of FC13 (from what I recall), package dependency errors are presented
 to the user, the user can ''ignore'', or go ''back'' to change package
 selections.  Package conflicts are treated similarly.

 File conflicts are also presented to the user, but they cannot be ignored.
 The user must return to the package selection screen and manually resolve
 the conflicts.

 I don't believe any of the behaviors changes whether the conflicts/deps
 are present in the repostep package groups, or during manual package
 selection.

 > * What does anaconda do if packages within any of the pre-defined
 install groups have declared conflicts (Conflicts: tags)
 >
 > * What does anaconda do if you manually select conflicting packages in
 the package selection interface - both declared and undeclared cases?
 >
 > I think we should have the answers to those questions before deciding
 exactly what our criteria for conflicting packages on the media ought to
 be...

 Adding clumens and jwrdegoede to the cc list (anaconda-devel).  As
 anaconda-devel, they're in a much better position to providing accurate
 answers.  My understanding of how this is handled (and test results) are
 listed above.

 To confirm the actual behavior, I updated my
 http://jlaska.fedorapeople.org/repotest/fc14  (based on rhe's work) to
 include 2 packages that conflict with each other, and 2 packages that
 contain file-conflicts, and 1 package with an unresolved dependency.

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/116#comment:5>
Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa>
Fedora Quality Assurance