> From: "Kevin Fenzi" <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> > On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 07:54:36 -0400 > Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Stephen Gallagher > > <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 04/06/2016 04:49 AM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > >>>>>>> "PP" == Petr Pisar <ppisar@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > >> > > >> PP> This changes meaning regarding to F25. Previous text banned > > >> PP> rich strong dependencies in F24 only. This current text > > >> PP> extends the ban to all Fedoras. > > >> > > >> PP> Is that intentional? > > >> > > >> It's currently correct according to FESCo's request as I > > >> understood it. While f25 might still be able to compose, if the > > >> tools aren't fixed before the next branch then we'll have to back > > >> things out or end up back in a situation where we can't mash > > >> updates. > > > > > > I'd say it's fine for now. Our *hope* is that we will be able to > > > support them for F25 at some point, but composes *right now* > > > probably don't work, so I think this wording is fine. > > > So you don't expect that mash could be fixed/replaced before the F24 > > release in June, then? I've talked to relengs and port of mash [1] will not happen any time soon. In best case it should make composes for F25. This is more complicated as pungi, mash and signed repos are linked together and the replacement of whole releng tools will not happen in a day. They plan bigger refactoring during the migration of these tools and replace them one by one. We are trying to allocate resources to make this done. Pungi-5 is almost ready to replace current yum based version and making a library from mash using DNF would probably take 1 man-month. Honza [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156546 -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
