Am 19.01.2014 20:00, schrieb drago01: > On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 7:32 PM, Jonathan Dieter <jdieter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Sun, 2014-01-19 at 19:15 +0100, drago01 wrote: >>> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Rahul Sundaram <metherid@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> Since updates don't automatically fix the issue created by >>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1054350 and users are required >>>> to run a set of steps as a workaround, shouldn't this be announced via the >>>> fedora announce list and posted in the Fedora website prominently as well? >>> >>> So it happened .. how do we prevent it in the future? How did it pass testing? >> >> Should we modify rpm so scriptlet failures aren't fatal? This is the >> second time in the last six months or so that I've seen scriptlet >> failures cause major update problems in Fedora, solely because they are >> fatal (see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989145). > > Well updates should be atomic so you either have the previous > (working) start or the new working state and thing in between. > > Yes this requires a bit of work but isn't impossible (requires some > infra at a lower level though) which would mean disallow scriptlets at all - but you hardly can do anything scriptlets are doing in a different way one problem is that many scriptlets are not that important or fail only on the second update still containing them after already applied - in that cases have them non-fatal would avoid dupes with no harm IMHO this problem is not solveable
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
