On 21. 1. 2015 at 11:13:28, Peter Robinson wrote: > >>>>> But I'm really interested in state of DNF as default too. Should I > >>>>> switch mock to use DNF as default? For me there is still lot of > >>>>> unfinished tasks. E.g. documenting what --installroot should actually > >>>>> do [BZ 1163028]>>>> > >>>> I don't think it's ready, it might be useful to have an option to > >>>> switch it over for local use to enable easier wider testing but I > >>>> certainly don't think it's ready to be default for mock yet. > >>>> > >>>> Peter > >>> > >>> I am using mock for Fedora development with DNF enabled by default and > >>> it works just fine. May be you want to share what is troubling you? > >> > >> There is a difference between « it works just fine for me » and « it > >> works to build the distro » > >> > >> The latter needs much more testing and guarantees than the former, > >> although the former is certainly encouraging. > > > > If somebody says "I certainly don't think it's ready to be default for > > mock yet.", I expect him to have strong evidence that something is > > wrong, not that something needs more testing. > > If somebody says that it's ready to go I would expect them to have > used mock to rebuild the entire distribution and prove that it works, > preferably twice actually once as an initial run from the original yum > builds, then again with dnf for a second run and prove, with > statistics to show that installs of said bits end up with the same > reproducible results for things like Workstation/Server/Minimal etc > installs. > > The onus in Fedora has _ALWAYS_ been to prove that the new feature is > complete and ready to replace the existing working solution, not for > everyone else to prove that it's not. I'm not so sure about that. Off the top of my head, I can think of rpm-4.12, UsrMove and systemd - those were neither proven flawless, nor they have been without issues when deployed. I bet there was at least one major change in each Fedora that was not flawless when accepted. > Given the number of issues I see reported with dnf regarding dependencies Obviously different depsolver = different results. Some of them for the better, some of them for the worse. But those that are proven problematic are baing taken care of continuously. > current kernels being removed This was fixed almost a year ago > and other such issues Name them please. Or better yet, report them. Thanks Jan -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
