James Laska wrote: > On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 12:36 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> Adam Williamson wrote: >> > Again, you're extrapolating way too far from a single problem case. The >> > problem is simply that we have the xorg-x11-drivers metapackage which >> > requires every single X driver and is in the critpath. There's various >> > ways we could adjust this so it's no longer the case. It's hardly >> > something that renders an entire policy invalid. >> >> Another example for how the critical path policy breaks things: >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/firstboot-1.113-4.fc14 >> This update adds support for xfwm4 and openbox to the firstboot code. >> Updates for those 2 window managers: >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xfwm4-4.6.2-2.fc14 >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openbox-3.4.11.2-4.fc14 ... >> I CANNOT push the firstboot update which UNBREAKS those 2 spins because >> of the update policy. So instead of preventing breakage, the policy >> CAUSES breakage! How can it fail more spectacularly for you to finally >> realize it's a failure? > In retrospect, if the three updates you list were in fact > interdependent, should they have been submitted and tested as a group to > avoid the current situation? Yes. -- Rex -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
