On Thu, 2015-12-17 at 05:16 -0500, Kamil Paral wrote:
> We have +1 from QA, +1 from dnf-plugin-system-upgrade
maintainer, and +1 from
> gnome-software maintainers (at least that's how I chose to interpret it).
> There were not many responses from general audience (I hoped for some
> package maintainers feedback). From my POV, we should just do it, or have it
> blessed by FESCo if we want to be extra safe and correct. I would do the
I forgot two things. There's this quote from Kalev that's worth mentioning:
> With my packager hat on, it would be great if we could get this in the
> packaging guidelines as well, so that there's a canonical source that
> says that obsoletes/conflicts etc must be preserved to support upgrades
> across 2 releases. And also maybe make some noise in devel-announce and
> in the fedora magazine so that packagers are aware that this is
> something everybody needs to support.
What do you think about pushing this into packaging guidelines?
Second, I'd like to highlight that gnome-software is not going to use
dnf-plugin-system-upgrade, but libhif instead. So we will need to
test both approaches (that's not specific to skip-release upgrades,
but the combinations multiply). So this is going to need more
resources in OpenQA, and possibly some more human resources when
debugging issues. I'm not too happy about it, after all the effort we
put into dnf-plugin-system-upgrade. Still, I think that supporting
skip-release upgrades doesn't add that much overhead, and it's worth
I suppose what we could do is test upgrades of some package sets with
DNF and upgrades of others with gnome-software - I guess minimal and
maybe Server with DNF, Workstation with gnome-software.
Adding that text to the packaging guidelines seems like a sensible
idea, yep. You'd have to propose it in an FPC ticket, that's the
procedure for packaging guideline changes IIRC.
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net