Release criteria proposal: installing / removing software

[Adam Williamson]

Hi, folks!

It's been noted a few times before that we have a release criterion
that requires *updating* packages (or, these days, 'software', to cover
things like modules) to work...but we don't have criteria covering
other basic software management tasks, notably installing and removing.
 There is a possible justification for this: so long as update works,
bugs in installation and removal can be fixed with updates. But really,
it seems reasonable to me that we should require basic
installation/removal of packages (and modules, and anything else we may
choose to consider release critical now or in future, e.g. flatpaks,
Shell extensions...) to work on release.

So, I'm proposing we modify the existing Basic and Beta criteria that
cover only updates, to also cover installation and removal. I like this
a bit more than adding separate criteria as the footnotes would be very
similar, and combining allows the footnotes to be shared.

So, the Basic criterion would change from:

"The installed system must be able to download and install appropriate
updates with the default console tool for the relevant update type
(e.g. default console package manager)."

to:

"The installed system must be able to install, remove, and install
appropriate updates for software with the default console tool for the
relevant software type (e.g. default console package manager). This
includes downloading of packages to be installed/updated."

the Beta criterion would similarly change from:

"The installed system must be able to download and install appropriate
updates with the default tool for the relevant update type in all
release-blocking desktops (e.g. default graphical package manager)."

to:

"The installed system must be able to install, remove, and install
appropriate updates for software with the default tool for the relevant
update type in all release-blocking desktops (e.g. default graphical
package manager). This includes downloading of packages to be
installed/updated."

the footnotes would be tweaked to refer more generically to 'software'
and stuff instead of 'updates', just kinda logical changes to reflect
the broadened criterion; I can go into detail on that if anyone wants.

Obviously if the criterion change is agreed upon, we will add test
cases to the test matrices.

Thoughts, comments, suggestions, acks and nacks? Thanks!
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net

[Matthew Miller]

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 11:35:21AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>  "The installed system must be able to install, remove, and
> install
>  appropriate updates for software with the default console tool for the
>  relevant software type (e.g. default console package manager). This
>  includes downloading of packages to be installed/updated." 
+1 in theory. The wording is a bit awkward, though -- it sounds like
"updates" are things we must be able to install, remove, and install
again. Why not just:

"The installed system must be able to install, remove, and update
software with the default console tool for the relevant software type
(e.g. default console package manager). This includes downloading of
packages to be installed/updated."


-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
Fedora Project Leader

[Adam Williamson]

On Tue, 2018-06-12 at 21:51 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
>  On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 11:35:21AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>  > "The installed system must be able to install, remove, and install
>  > appropriate updates for software with the default console tool for the
>  > relevant software type (e.g. default console package manager). This
>  > includes downloading of packages to be installed/updated."
>  
>  +1 in theory. The wording is a bit awkward, though -- it sounds like
>  "updates" are things we must be able to install, remove, and install
>  again. Why not just:
>  
>  "The installed system must be able to install, remove, and update
>  software with the default console tool for the relevant software type
>  (e.g. default console package manager). This includes downloading of
>  packages to be installed/updated." 
We already have a thread about exactly this wording problem. :P The
reason I didn't go for that wording is that it loses the 'appropriate'
concept, which is important and was specifically included. It appears
that people are having trouble parsing the intended sense of the
wording I chose - there are three actions, "install", "remove" and
"install appropriate updates for", all of which affect "software" -
so
I'm trying to think of another way to put it.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net

[Rick Stevens]

On 06/13/2018 09:56 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>  On Tue, 2018-06-12 at 21:51 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 11:35:21AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >> "The installed system must be able to install, remove, and install
> >> appropriate updates for software with the default console tool for the
> >> relevant software type (e.g. default console package manager). This
> >> includes downloading of packages to be installed/updated."
> >
> > +1 in theory. The wording is a bit awkward, though -- it sounds like
> > "updates" are things we must be able to install, remove, and install
> > again. Why not just:
> >
> > "The installed system must be able to install, remove, and update
> > software with the default console tool for the relevant software type
> > (e.g. default console package manager). This includes downloading of
> > packages to be installed/updated."
>  
>  We already have a thread about exactly this wording problem. :P The
>  reason I didn't go for that wording is that it loses the 'appropriate'
>  concept, which is important and was specifically included. It appears
>  that people are having trouble parsing the intended sense of the
>  wording I chose - there are three actions, "install", "remove" and
>  "install appropriate updates for", all of which affect "software" -
> so
>  I'm trying to think of another way to put it. 
How about:

"The installed system must be able to install and remove packages, and
apply updates to installed packages using the default console tool for
the software involved. It must also support downloading packages for
later manual or automated installation."

Or did I miss the intent?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigital    ricks(a)alldigital.com -
- AIM/Skype: therps2        ICQ: 226437340           Yahoo: origrps2 -
-                                                                    -
-   Let us think the unthinkable. Let us do the undoable. Let us     -
-   prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may  -
-                      not eff it up after all.                      -
-                                                 -- Douglas Adams   -
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Matthew Miller]

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 09:56:07AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>  > "The installed system must be able to install, remove, and
> update
>  > software with the default console tool for the relevant software type
>  > (e.g. default console package manager). This includes downloading of
>  > packages to be installed/updated."
>  
>  We already have a thread about exactly this wording problem. :P The
>  reason I didn't go for that wording is that it loses the 'appropriate'
>  concept, which is important and was specifically included. It appears 
Don't we also want appropriate software installed and removed?

"The installed system must be able to appropriately install, remove,
and updates software with ..." ?

That just seems like filler — "appropriate" seems like it's already
understood.

Or do you mean "update, if an update is available"? Or "update to the
latest one"? Or "update and not screw things up"? What _is_
appropriate, anyway?




-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
Fedora Project Leader

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2018-06-14 at 11:48 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
>  On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 09:56:07AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>  > > "The installed system must be able to install, remove, and update
>  > > software with the default console tool for the relevant software type
>  > > (e.g. default console package manager). This includes downloading of
>  > > packages to be installed/updated."
>  > 
>  > We already have a thread about exactly this wording problem. :P The
>  > reason I didn't go for that wording is that it loses the 'appropriate'
>  > concept, which is important and was specifically included. It appears
>  
>  Don't we also want appropriate software installed and removed? 
It doesn't really...apply in that case. It's about the selection of
appropriate updates when updating.

>  "The installed system must be able to appropriately install,
> remove,
>  and updates software with ..." ?
>  
>  That just seems like filler — "appropriate" seems like it's already
>  understood.
>  
>  Or do you mean "update, if an update is available"? Or "update to the
>  latest one"? Or "update and not screw things up"? What _is_
>  appropriate, anyway? 
There's a footnote explaining that already:

"Appropriate means that the relevant update mechanism(s) for any given
deployment must apply the correct updates to the correct components,
and not apply incorrect updates. To give a specific example of why this
wording is included, there was previously a case where newer package
versions from modules were being installed as 'updates' to systems
which did not have those modules installed, only the package with the
same name from the non-modular system repositories. This would be an
example of 'inappropriate' updating that violated this criterion."

as explained there, we actually *specifically* added this wording
because there was a bug with packages from modules being selected as
updates when the modules they were from weren't installed, and we felt 
it was best to have the criterion explicitly cover this kind of
situation.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net

[Matthew Miller]

On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 03:47:25PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>  There's a footnote explaining that already: 
Ah, that clears it up. Thanks :)

>  as explained there, we actually *specifically* added this wording
>  because there was a bug with packages from modules being selected as
>  updates when the modules they were from weren't installed, and we felt 
>  it was best to have the criterion explicitly cover this kind of
>  situation. 
Hmmm; this *could* apply to install, too -- for example, installing a
package from a module that's not supposed to be enabled, or failing to
from one that is.


-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
Fedora Project Leader

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2018-06-14 at 19:25 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
>  On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 03:47:25PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>  > There's a footnote explaining that already:
>  
>  Ah, that clears it up. Thanks :)
>  
>  > as explained there, we actually *specifically* added this wording
>  > because there was a bug with packages from modules being selected as
>  > updates when the modules they were from weren't installed, and we felt 
>  > it was best to have the criterion explicitly cover this kind of
>  > situation.
>  
>  Hmmm; this *could* apply to install, too -- for example, installing a
>  package from a module that's not supposed to be enabled, or failing to
>  from one that is. 
Hum, that's a decent point. /me continues to cogitate
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2018-06-14 at 17:31 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>  On Thu, 2018-06-14 at 19:25 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
>  > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 03:47:25PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>  > > There's a footnote explaining that already:
>  > 
>  > Ah, that clears it up. Thanks :)
>  > 
>  > > as explained there, we actually *specifically* added this wording
>  > > because there was a bug with packages from modules being selected as
>  > > updates when the modules they were from weren't installed, and we felt 
>  > > it was best to have the criterion explicitly cover this kind of
>  > > situation.
>  > 
>  > Hmmm; this *could* apply to install, too -- for example, installing a
>  > package from a module that's not supposed to be enabled, or failing to
>  > from one that is.
>  
>  Hum, that's a decent point. /me continues to cogitate 
So, having cogitated, how about this wording?

Basic:

"The installed system must be able appropriately to install, remove,
and update software with the default console tool for the relevant
software type (e.g. default console package manager). This includes
downloading of packages to be installed/updated."

Beta:

"The installed system must be able appropriately to install, remove,
and update software with the default tool for the relevant software
type in all release-blocking desktops (e.g. default graphical package
manager). This includes downloading of packages to be
installed/updated."

Grammatically, this means the "appropriately" applies to all three
actions ("install, remove and update").

The footnote would read:

"Appropriately?

''Appropriately'' means that the relevant software mechanism(s) for any
given deployment must choose the software to be installed, updated or
removed in ways that are broadly in line with the user's intent and
typical expectations, and the project's intent as to which software
should be provided from which repositories etc.

To give a specific example of why this wording is included, there was
previously a case where newer package versions from modules were being
installed as 'updates' to systems which did not have those modules
installed, only the package with the same name from the non-modular
system repositories. This would be an example of 'inappropriate'
updating that violated this criterion. Other examples might include
installing packages from the wrong module stream, or failing to include
available updates from an enabled official repository."

Does that sound good to everyone? Thanks!
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net