FC3rc5

[Matias Féliciano]

Le vendredi 29 octobre 2004 à 19:11 -0400, Paul Iadonisi a écrit :
> On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 18:45, Matias Féliciano wrote:
> 
> > If I can't update from FC3RC1 to FC3 it should be considered as a bug.
> 
>   Not likely to happen.  Ever.  If you wish to donate development effort
> to anaconda and lobby the anaconda developers to incorporate
> testrelease->officialrelease (all combinations) specific hacks, then you
> are welcome to do that.

Good point. "yum/up2date --update" should work.

>   I'm sure the current anaconda developers have
> plenty enough to do that they are probably not interested in wasting
> time on upgrades *from* test releases.
> 
> > If after an update from FC1 to FC3RC1 there still bugs, they should be
> > considered as confirmed bugs. Fedora should not request to do a fresh
> > install to confirm the bug.
> 
>   You are correct, here.  However, sometimes is can be quite helpful to
> determine whether a problem exists in both upgrades and installs or just
> in upgrades.  Sometimes, upgrade problems can be harder to fix.  Even
> tricky enough that they can't safely be fix in an automated way,
> especially when a choice has to be made that is best made by the user. 
> But identifying something as an upgrade problem can narrow down the
> problem and provide, via the release notes, a way to mitigate or fix the
> problem manually.
>   If you've done upgrades of *any* other OS, you must know that almost
> all upgrades have some issues.  Usually, they are minor, and often, they
> are 'release-noted'.
>   But if something gets closed as NOTABUG because it is an upgrade
> problem (from official release to test release), then I'd bitch, too. 
> WONTFIX, I can deal with, though, if it's due to a engineering resource
> issue.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > After rc1, fedora should not downgrade package. Fedora is freeze since
> > Test 3.
> 
>   In an ideal world, yes.  But there are times when it's unavoidable.
> 
> > I am not requesting for a "strong" support. Information in the release
> > note to update from FC3RC(x) to FC3 is enough (perhaps with some "rpm -U
> > --oldpackage :-)).
> > 
> > ______________________________________________________________________
>   Well, that makes sense.  But sometimes, as I mentioned above, there
> are some things that may need user intervention.  Stuff that anaconda
> does to fix some things up, that won't work with interim test release
> due to an attempt to integrate something into the release that failed. 
> Two examples from the FC2 cycle come to mind that might have caused
> problems: evolution 1.5 and selinux. 

During Release Candidat ? Are you sure ?

>  Someone more intimately involved
> with those may be able to confirm or deny if these specifically would
> have been a problem for upgrades from interim test releases, but they
> are just examples to illustrate a point.  And that is that big
> integration efforts sometimes don't succeed in time for release.  And
> that makes for messy, error-prone, from-test-release upgrades.
> 
> -- 
> -Paul Iadonisi
>  Senior System Administrator
>  Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist
>  Ever see a penguin fly?  --  Try Linux.
>  GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une partie de message
	=?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/attachments/20041030/6227e412/attachment.bin