On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 19:17 -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Adam Williamson
> I honestly think GNOME has this exactly right for the 'general' user:
> the safe thing to do is to strongly encourage offline updates, i.e.
> don't offer any online update mechanism through the desktop. In a
> completely practical sense, given the current state of the tools and
> the fact that we know bugs like this crop up - not *often*, but more
> than *never* - I think it's a more responsible approach than running
> the update process inside the desktop session.
> Could KDE perhaps look into making it so the update process runs
> outside of the desktop session somehow, if it's not going to go to
> full-on offline updates 'any time soon'? I know this decision has its
> own complexities, though.
<snip pointless fifteenth repetition of the same stuff>
OK, I can see the value in offline updates, so I create a RFE to DNF,
I thought was suppose
to be THE STANDARD FEDORA SOLUTION.
Hmm, well, it's not really that simple, is it? I mean, if you just
landed from Mars and installed Fedora Workstation, you'd have no idea
what dnf was. It's not remotely discoverable. I haven't read the user
guide in forever so I dunno what that says, but no-one reads the docs
anyway. What you'd actually find by poking around is GNOME Software.
Which isn't dnf at all. The 'STANDARD FEDORA SOLUTION' for Workstation
is offline updates with GNOME Software. The 'standard Fedora solution'
for KDE is...well I don't know, because KDE being KDE it ships three
different package management GUIs, but it's probably not really dnf
either. dnf is the STANDARD FEDORA SOLUTION for Server and Cloud, I
guess, but you're quite unlikely to be running it from inside X on
either of those.
Where was the campaign to communicate this "serious issue"
to the Fedora
There wasn't one. I took it upon myself to send out an email because
I'd seen enough reports of people getting broken updates - there had
been I think seven or eight reports in #fedora at that point, and we
had a live reporter in #fedora-qa who was helping us pin down the bug.
Next time maybe I'll just say 'screw this' and go play golf instead, if
this is the thanks I get for trying to help people out. I've already
been told today that I have 'NO FUCKING CLUE', and you're not helping.
At this point I'm not sure exactly why I bothered.
Do you think you're going to get the message out by posting to
development mailing lists?
The original mail was CC'ed to users@. I wrote a detailed blog post on
I posted that to the thread (also CC'ed to users@), and I also tweeted
and G+'ed it. Either it or the original email has been picked up by
enough news outlets (usually the original email, because of course news
outlets don't bother to research follow-ups with actual details, sigh)
that at this point my inbox is full of 'haha systemd sucks' flames.
Which of course also makes me feel great about things.
Where was this discussion when we went from YUM to DNF if it was such
This didn't change at all between yum and dnf. yum wasn't written to
try and survive its console dying, and neither is dnf. I don't know if
changing that was considered.
I mean, again, same question I asked Sam: what exactly is your *goal*
here? What are trying to achieve by hounding this thread? We're not
sending the Update Police around to your house to tell you how to
update your systems. If you've decided that you're okay with the risks
and you want to keep running 'dnf update' from a terminal in X I'm not
going to *stop* you. You can go right ahead. All I know is we were
getting multiple reports of multiple real users getting their systems
into messed up states due to this bug, so it seems like a responsible
idea to alert people to the issue and suggest that they take steps to
If we'd had all the precise details about the cause and the affected
hardware at the time I wrote the original email, I'd have included it.
In fact if I'd known we were going to get that detail quite soon after
I sent the email, I'd have held off and sent a more detailed mail
later. But I didn't know that, and I didn't want to sit on the issue
for an undetermined amount of time, so I wrote about it. I'm terribly
freaking sorry that it seems to have caused you such strife.
If this is such a huge issue, why doesn't the DNF team consider
it a higher
I don't know. I'm not the DNF team. Maybe they don't believe many
people run it from inside X. Maybe they believe people run it in tmux
or screen. I'm a QA monkey. I just deal with bugs. All goddamn day
long, I deal with bugs. When there's a sufficiently serious one, I try
to tell people about it.
Why are we asking that each DE reinvent the wheel on this when we
DNF? That just seems
to be a complete waste of resources.
We're not. The offline update mechanism is all implemented in
PackageKit. The graphical package managers in both our main release
blocking desktops use PackageKit. They don't have to reinvent any
wheels to use the offline update mechanism, they just have to put the
appropriate graphical wrappers around the relevant PackageKit bits.
I personally would be rather a lot happier if dnf and all the graphical
update tools we cared about shared a common base so they shared history
and caches and configuration and locks and stuff properly. But they
don't. I can't fix this. Please stop bugging me about it.
<snip more pointless repetition>
I have read indicates that it is minimal.
I don't understand how you can write this, when we have *multiple
people reporting in this very thread* that their systems were affected
by exactly this bug. I mean, it's just...strange. We flat out know that
quite a lot of hardware, if you run a 'dnf update' in an X terminal
right now, is going to have a big problem (because there's a systemd-
udev update from a fresh F24 install, and there's a system-udev update
in updates-testing right now).
What exactly would you have had me do? Just sit on this and pretend
there was no bug and when we saw more and more people come into #fedora
and complain about it, tell them the risk was minimal so they should
just suck it up and get on with their lives? I mean, seriously, what do
That isn't to say it shouldn't
be done... what I am saying is
people need to stop being alarmist
OK, from now on when I see bugs causing serious real world consequences
for multiple real world reporters I'll just shut up and pretend it's
not happening, shall I? Wouldn't want to be all 'alarmist' about it.
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net