Re: Criteria proposal: move "No broken packages" requirement to Final
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.