UsrMove feature breaking "yum upgrade" upgrades from older releases to F17?

[Peter Robinson]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 10:48:27PM +0000, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> So I saw a rpm update and a number of other builds today when dealing
>> with various packaging bits. Checking the update [1] and reading the
>> attached bug [2] I was a little shocked to find that "yum upgrade"
>> between releases would be explicitly broken due to this feature.
>>
>> Yes, I know that it's not officially recommended as a means of
>> upgrading and never been QAed it has been generally supported and
>> expected to work [4] for as long as I can remember.
>>
>> The thing that is annoying me is that this change has not been
>> explicitly mentioned in the "Feature" [3], it does no appear in the
>> FAQ on the feature and I don't remember it ever being bought up in the
>> discussions about the feature although I admit I probably have missed
>> some of the discussion. Has this side effect of the feature been
>> discussed at all? Can someone point me to a thread?
>>
> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/690#comment:8
>
> https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/118
>
> IIRC from the discussion in FPC meetings, there should be a way to make yum
> upgrades work but you'd first have to boot up specially and run an initial
> upgrade script:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrading_Fedora_using_yum#Fedora_16_-.3E_Fedora_17

How does that work on headless devices? It doesn't seem to be well
tested. In fact there doesn't seem to be a way to be able to test it.

> If the Feature Owners have progressed to the implementing stae, I would
> greatly appreciate them updating that page with the actual step-by-step to
> perform the upgrade (which will also allow people to test that things work).

They haven't yet. They were building packages yesterday under the
f17-usrmove tag but there has been no heads up to any of the lists, no
documentation or links to the documentation from the feature page and
we're only 12 days out from feature freeze and it still hasn't landed.
This should have been in rawhide months ago. This is just asking for
slippage of the schedule.

IMO this is too late and there's too many widely impacting things that
haven't been widely announced. Personally I think, similar to what
happened in F-14 with systemd, this feature should be pushed back to
F-18 to give the feature developers more time to properly develop and
test things like those scripts or decent procedures in order to be
able to progress this properly rather than throwing it over the fence
a week or so before feature freeze/branch and ensuring a just about
guaranteed slip of the schedule.

This just makes a whole mockery of the Feature process and basically
gives the idea that a number of people thing they can just do as they
please, when they please and ride rough shod over the process.

> I also agree with your point that this discussion should be reflected on the
> Feature page (Since the Feature page is where marketing material is taken
> from).  Could that be updated as well?

It's also where a lot of people go to figure out the impact and how
they can test various features. There's not a single mention of "yum
upgrade" breakage or change of process.

Peter