Re: Criteria proposal: move "No broken packages" requirement to Final
If my vote counts, I am +1 as well.
Thanks Adam for following up.
Regards,
Jan
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 2:49 AM, John Dulaney <jdulaney(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 11:17:27AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> So, at the Alpha go/no-go we discussed this bug:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1437299
>
> and agreed that with current behaviour of anaconda and dnf, blocking
> Alpha release on it didn't make sense.
>
> The relevant criterion here is
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_26_Alpha_Release_Criteria#No_broken... :
>
> "There must be no errors in any package on the release-blocking images
> which cause the package to fail to install."
>
> In practice, this criterion is only relevant to DVD images. AFAIK, it's
> not possible for the other image types to contain packages they can't
> install, because they all wind up deploying the bits they're actually
> built *from* - they don't act as 'package repositories'.
>
> At the time we wrote the criterion, we had a generic DVD image with
> many different packages and package groups on it. The installer GUI
> allowed you to select 'optional' packages from the groups included on
> the image for installation. And if any package selected had dependency
> issues, the install would fail with an error.
>
> Quite a lot has changed since. We no longer have a generic DVD image,
> only the Server DVD image, which contains only a handful of Server-
> related package groups. The installer GUI no longer lets you select
> optional packages; you can only select the 'environments' and 'option
> groups' that are present on the DVD, and only 'mandatory' and
'default'
> packages from those groups will be selected for install. And if a
> selected package has dependency issues, the install will simply proceed
> with that package (and anything else that requires it) omitted.
>
> Given all of these considerations, I propose we move the criterion to
> Final.
>
> For the record, I'm also looking at the dnf/anaconda behaviour. It
> turns out there's a few wrinkles, but I do think we should switch it
> back to 'strict' mode (where any listed package not being found or
> being non-installable for some reason causes an error) by default. But
> it's not entirely straightforward.
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1427365 is the place to
> follow that. I do still think that moving the criterion to Final would
> be OK even if we changed dnf behaviour; I think for Alpha and Beta it's
> enough if the default Server DVD package set installs OK, we should
> make sure that the other package sets available from the Server DVD
> install OK for Final.
>
> Thoughts? Notes? Concerns? Thanks!
I am +1.
John.
_______________________________________________
test mailing list -- test(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
--
Jan Kuřík
Platform & Fedora Program Manager
Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkynova 99/71, 612 45 Brno, Czech Republic