fedup f20->f21 kde broken deps

[Adam Williamson]

On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 19:37 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2014 08:58:02 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 11:00 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > > On Fri, 12 Dec 2014 00:12:37 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I haven't seen a single person report a dep issue of this 
> > > > nature, and I spent most of release day in #fedora, and have 
> > > > been
> > > > following G+, forum, and various news site feedback since.
> > > 
> > > Violated upgrade path issues still hit users. One example:
> > > 
> > >   R in F21 older than in F19
> > >   
> > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/2014-December/456108.html
> > > 
> > > Other users don't ask the Fedora Project but just give up and 
> > > hope it will work some months later (which isn't guaranteed 
> > > either).
> > 
> > That's not a dependency problem. Nothing breaks.
> 
> Really?

Awesome, so now you have me running a test install of F20 with R just 
to see what happens in this situation. There's certainly no other way I
could be using my damn morning.

We seem to keep going in circles here. Here's what I'm contending:

* Any particular fedup test is only of value, regarding package 
upgrade path issues, for that particular day's compose of *both* the 
'from' distro *and* the 'to' distro. We started debating this last 
week, and there was at least one updates push for *both* F20 *and* F21 
between last week and the GA date. So 'failures' for fedup upgradepath 
last week were not necessarily failing on release day. Is it useful to 
catch upgradepath issues and then go to Bodhi, look into the state of 
the from and to distros, and try to help make sure they're consistent 
for release day? Of course it is. But with the way updates currently 
work, I think it's taking things too far to say that it's worthless to 
test upgrades against updates-testing, which was one place where we 
started this endless debate.

* The obvious way you can really 'solve' this 'problem' is to tighten 
down the updates policy, but that's not a free action. It *does* come 
with negative consequences and there *will* be pushback against it 
from packagers. Personally I am totally happy if anyone wants to come 
up with a comprehensive proposal for adjusting the updates policy and 
*take it to FESCo*, who own the updates policy. If someone comes up 
with such a proposal, we can even put it up for discussion on this 
list or in a QA meeting and decide if QA as a whole wants to back it 
in the FESCo discussion. But I'm just tired of going around in endless 
discussion, especially when no-one seems to acknowledge the issue just 
isn't as straightforward as 'oh well it's OBVIOUSLY wrong and we 
should OBVIOUSLY just have strict upgradepath enforcement'.

The other path you can take is to try and convince wwoods to have 
fedup do distro-sync. The bug reports for that are 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=892061 and h
ttps://github.com/wgwoods/fedup/issues/21 . Given that wwoods filed 
https://github.com/wgwoods/fedup/issues/21 himself, I'm guessing he'd 
welcome a patch.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net