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_pa... :
"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!
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_pa... :
"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!
Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net
I'm +1 to the movement to Final.
// Mike -- Fedora QA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Adam Williamson" adamwill@fedoraproject.org To: "For testing and quality assurance of Fedora releases" test@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2017 11:47:27 PM Subject: Criteria proposal: move "No broken packages" requirement to Final
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_pa... :
"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!
Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
I too concur with Roshi and +1 this to be moved to final
Thanks Sumantro
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_pa... :
"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.
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@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_pa... :
"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@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 11:17 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
Given all of these considerations, I propose we move the criterion to Final.
As there were no concerns raised, I'm going ahead and implementing this change now. Thanks!
-
Adam Williamson -
Jan Kurik -
John Dulaney -
Mike Ruckman -
Sumantro Mukherjee