Please help me test Workstation 28 -> 29 upgrade

[Miro Hrončok]

Hi,

could somebody please test upgrade from fully upgraded Workstation 28 to 
29? I have a suspicion that it will be blocked by [0], yet I lack disk 
space to try it.

Thanks.

[0] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1605613

[Adam Williamson]

On Wed, 2018-08-01 at 00:13 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Hi,
>
> could somebody please test upgrade from fully upgraded Workstation 28 to 
> 29? I have a suspicion that it will be blocked by [0], yet I lack disk 
> space to try it.
>
> Thanks.
>
> [0] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1605613

openQA does this on every compose.

Upgrading with dnf without '--allowerasing' does indeed fail on this
problem, but with '--allowerasing' it works (the openQA test first
tries the former, if it fails, it registers a 'soft fail' and tries the
latter instead). GNOME Software, IIRC, does the equivalent of '--best
--allowerasing' by default, so upgrading graphically would probably
work.

https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/261810

(Note today's test failed due to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1610562 ).

Also note this should probably have gone to test@ or devel@...

[Miro Hrončok]

On 1.8.2018 00:51, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-08-01 at 00:13 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > could somebody please test upgrade from fully upgraded Workstation 28 to
> > 29? I have a suspicion that it will be blocked by [0], yet I lack disk
> > space to try it.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > [0] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1605613
>
> openQA does this on every compose.
>
> Upgrading with dnf without '--allowerasing' does indeed fail on this
> problem, but with '--allowerasing' it works (the openQA test first
> tries the former, if it fails, it registers a 'soft fail' and tries the
> latter instead). GNOME Software, IIRC, does the equivalent of '--best
> --allowerasing' by default, so upgrading graphically would probably
> work.

Thanks!
> https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/261810
>
> (Note today's test failed due to
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1610562 ).
>
> Also note this should probably have gone to test@ or devel@...

Probably yes, my fault.