Anaconda on a Test Day CD?

[Kamil Paral]

Hi,

there's the idea of removing anaconda from the default Test Day
kickstart script [1]. What would it cause?

+ Less building problems. Anaconda dependencies are often broken
  in Rawhide. Removing anaconda from Test Day CD would prevent 
  building problems. It would be more likely for people to 
  successfully build the CD. (When Test Day CD can't be built 
  because of dependencies problems, not everyone would think up
  removing anaconda).
+ The image size would be a little smaller. (not a big issue)
- It wouldn't be possible to install Rawhide from Test Day CD.
  (Is this really a minus? How often do people install Rawhide
  from Test Day CDs? How often do we want them to do that?
  What if someone installs Rawhide with some heavily modified
  packages from a Test Day, can it cause confusions in some
  future bugreports?)
- If we want anaconda on Test Day CD specifically, it must be
  manually added. (not a big issue)
* No "Install" icon on the desktop :)

So what do you think? Is it/is it not worth bothering? Do we
more often want anaconda included or have less problems when
building it?

Thanks for opinions,
Kamil

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Test_Days/Live_Image

[Bruno Wolff III]

On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 11:54:21 -0400,
  Kamil Paral  wrote:
> So what do you think? Is it/is it not worth bothering? Do we
> more often want anaconda included or have less problems when
> building it?

I think you make a case for it being a reasonable exception.
I don't know if it is worth bothering with. Especially going forward
there are supposed to be more safeguards against things breaking
anaconda.

I saw you put up instructions to cover how to handle building a test
day image if anaconda is broken when you need to do the build. That
might be good enough.

["Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"]

On 09/29/2009 03:54 PM, Kamil Paral wrote:
> Hi,
>
> there's the idea of removing anaconda from the default Test Day
> kickstart script [1]. What would it cause?
> Less building problems. Anaconda dependencies are often broken
> in Rawhide. Removing anaconda from Test Day CD would prevent 
> building problems. It would be more likely for people to 
> successfully build the CD. (When Test Day CD can't be built 
> because of dependencies problems, not everyone would think up
> removing anaconda).
> The image size would be a little smaller. (not a big issue)
> It wouldn't be possible to install Rawhide from Test Day CD.
> (Is this really a minus? How often do people install Rawhide
> from Test Day CDs? How often do we want them to do that?
> What if someone installs Rawhide with some heavily modified
> packages from a Test Day, can it cause confusions in some
> future bugreports?)
> If we want anaconda on Test Day CD specifically, it must be
> manually added. (not a big issue)
> No "Install" icon on the desktop :)
>
> So what do you think? Is it/is it not worth bothering? Do we
> more often want anaconda included or have less problems when
> building it?
>
> Thanks for opinions,
> Kamil
>
> [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Test_Days/Live_Image

I think Anaconda should stay we need to expose the installer to as much
testing as possible ( AutoQA should be able to take care of kickstarts
installation testing but that certainly leaves the GUI one out which the
regular end users is exposed to ) and frankly I think the problem lies
elsewhere I sometimes have a gut feeling that Team anaconda is not quite
following the same rules and regulation as the rest of the community. I
would like the QA to receive a bit where they're at and where they're
going at the start of each release cycle so we can monitor Anaconda
progress. When AutoQA can do Anaconda GUI installation testing I think
it's safe to say we can remove it and then just have couple of Targeted
Anaconda Installation Test Day's.

JBG

[Adam Williamson]

On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 17:04 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> I think Anaconda should stay we need to expose the installer to as
> much
> testing as possible ( AutoQA should be able to take care of kickstarts
> installation testing but that certainly leaves the GUI one out which
> the
> regular end users is exposed to ) and frankly I think the problem lies
> elsewhere I sometimes have a gut feeling that Team anaconda is not
> quite
> following the same rules and regulation as the rest of the community.

Kamil noted explicitly that anaconda _dependencies_ are often broken,
which is usually not the fault of anaconda.

anaconda is developed just as any other Fedora component is.

[Bruno Wolff III]

On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 10:23:34 -0700,
  Adam Williamson  wrote:
> Kamil noted explicitly that anaconda _dependencies_ are often broken,
> which is usually not the fault of anaconda.
>
> anaconda is developed just as any other Fedora component is.

Anaconda is considered a critical package and I believe that also makes
it dependencies critical packages. Eventually these packages are all
supposed to be handled more carefully so that rawhide is very likely
to be installable, bootable and updatable at any point in time.

There was also a separate initiative to make the last know good rawhide
available when rawhide does have critical breakage. That proposal doesn't
seem to have been implemented as described, but may be going on in some
form.

See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Critical_Path_Packages_Proposal
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Israwhidebroken.com_Proposal

[Kamil Paral]

----- "Kamil Paral"  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> there's the idea of removing anaconda from the default Test Day
> kickstart script.

Thanks all for remarks, let's keep anaconda in then. The wiki has been
updated with at least an info [1].

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Test_Days/Live_Image#Anaconda_dependencies...