On Wed, 2008-11-19 at 10:07 -0900, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > 2008/11/19 Callum Lerwick <seg@xxxxxxxxxx>: > > 1) Make it easy to report bugs. Bugzilla is complex, slow, and > > inscrutable. We need to put a simpler layer on top of it. Reporting a > > bug should require just a few clicks. It should automatically include > > all the information needed for the bug report, the distro version, > > package version, arch, and things such as how the Xorg team demands your > > xorg.conf and Xorg.0.log. Make finding dupes easier. Collect stack > > traces system wide and enter them in a database, which bugzilla can > > reference and from which bugzilla bugs can be derived. A system wide > > kerneloops. (I know this has been talked about, what's the status?) > > Maybe you can help do what's necessary to get apport integrated into > our infrastructure. > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureApport > > > > 2) Make it simple to roll back to a known good state. We need a "system > > restore". I know what you're thinking, but our vastly superior, > > centralized, system-wide package management (and lack of a whole > > seperate "system registry" namespace) allows us to make this actually > > work. We need per-package rollback. Period. > > Let me point out that rollback itself would require testing. Let me point out that package rollbacks will never work in general, because updates may contain non-reversable state-full operations (e.g. reformatting databases). > Obsoletes, triggers, (un)post/pre scripts, config file handling... all > this rpm functionality complicates how successful rollbacks are to get > you back to a restored system state. How are we going to test if a > rollback works before you ask people to perform the rollback? This problem is not restricted to rpm. It's a general package installer problem. IMO, the installer is the wrong layer of addressing this issue. Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
