On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 01:38:37 +0000 Marko Vojinovic <vvmarko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wednesday 15 February 2012 18:16:40 Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 19:45:11 -0500 > > > > Tom Horsley <horsley1953@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Huh? None of that junk is in updates today, that's why people > > > find it broken all the time. The test system using the staging > > > repo can either run "yum update" with no errors, or it can't. > > > If it gets no errors, the staging repo becomes the updates > > > repo. If it does get errors, the updates repo is left alone > > > until the staging repo gets fixed and everyone who pushed > > > an update since the last time updates was working gets mail > > > with the yum update transcript. > > > > It sounds simple enough... but: > > > > Whats on the test system? Everything? > > Yes, everything. Actually, we would need one test system for each > arch, but that's not a problem. You can't install everything. > > It can't have all packages > > installed due to some conflicting (deliberately, or due to bugs). > > I never understood why there are conflicting packages in the first > place? When a distro has two packages which cannot be installed > simultaneously, it's a packaging bug, and should be fixed. Examples: fedora-logos vs generic-logos astronomy-bookmarks vs fedora-bookmarks etc Anyhow, this isn't going to work IMHO... Do feel free to talk with autoqa folks and ask to help or offer your suggestion. kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
