> > I don't think we should be making this change, at least at this point in time. > > The reason we're making it now is because the behavior didn't become > apparent until /after/ we killed betanag, and since that was extremely > late in the cycle we have to fix things extremely late in the cycle. Except we've been doing it this way since way back in July, and I am fairly certain either you or Jeremy brought it to my attention which is why I went ahead and made the change to include betanag in the picture. I did it fully aware of what was going to happen. > Perhaps next time it would be prudent to do a test build in the "final > format" prior to this point in the schedule. Yes, absolutely. > I'm not going to remove the rawhide repo from the fedora-release, it's > how people get moved to rawhide when they want to make that jump. If > you want to work out some way to filter rawhide like repos at > buildinstall time, have at it I guess. It would be interesting to see > how this could be done in a non-Fedora specific kind of way. No, no lists of repos to filter on. We had that in installclasses/fedora.py and getting rid of static repo lists was one of the big changes in my stage2 stuff. > I honestly don't see why the line has to be at "show me every > repo" (except for the ones that have -debuginfo or -source in the > name...) instead of "show me the repos that would be enabled by default > post-install" which seems to me to be a much safer set to offer the > user. I didn't really like taking the -source or -debuginfo repos out either, but those seem to be pretty universally shunned anyway so I suppose there was precedence there. And I doubt that having rawhide as an option as well is really all that much safer than things like DVD+updates. How much testing or work did we do on that this time around? Because I know I didn't do very much. - Chris _______________________________________________ Anaconda-devel-list mailing list Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
