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

[Adam Williamson]

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!
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net

[Mike Ruckman]

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!
>  -- 
>  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

[Sumantro Mukherjee]

----- Original Message -----
>  From: "Adam Williamson" <adamwill(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
>  To: "For testing and quality assurance of Fedora releases"
> <test(a)lists.fedoraproject.org&gt;
>  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...
>  :
>  
>  "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(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>   

I too concur with Roshi and +1 this to be moved to final

Thanks
Sumantro

[John Dulaney]

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.

[Jan Kurik]

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&gt; 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

[Adam Williamson]

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
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net