On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 19:17 -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Adam Williamson <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > I honestly think GNOME has this exactly right for the 'general' user: > > the safe thing to do is to strongly encourage offline updates, i.e. > > don't offer any online update mechanism through the desktop. In a > > completely practical sense, given the current state of the tools and > > the fact that we know bugs like this crop up - not *often*, but more > > than *never* - I think it's a more responsible approach than running > > the update process inside the desktop session. > > > > Could KDE perhaps look into making it so the update process runs > > outside of the desktop session somehow, if it's not going to go to > > full-on offline updates 'any time soon'? I know this decision has its > > own complexities, though. > > <snip pointless fifteenth repetition of the same stuff> > OK, I can see the value in offline updates, so I create a RFE to DNF, which > I thought was suppose > to be THE STANDARD FEDORA SOLUTION. Hmm, well, it's not really that simple, is it? I mean, if you just landed from Mars and installed Fedora Workstation, you'd have no idea what dnf was. It's not remotely discoverable. I haven't read the user guide in forever so I dunno what that says, but no-one reads the docs anyway. What you'd actually find by poking around is GNOME Software. Which isn't dnf at all. The 'STANDARD FEDORA SOLUTION' for Workstation is offline updates with GNOME Software. The 'standard Fedora solution' for KDE is...well I don't know, because KDE being KDE it ships three different package management GUIs, but it's probably not really dnf either. dnf is the STANDARD FEDORA SOLUTION for Server and Cloud, I guess, but you're quite unlikely to be running it from inside X on either of those. > Where was the campaign to communicate this "serious issue" to the Fedora > community? There wasn't one. I took it upon myself to send out an email because I'd seen enough reports of people getting broken updates - there had been I think seven or eight reports in #fedora at that point, and we had a live reporter in #fedora-qa who was helping us pin down the bug. Next time maybe I'll just say 'screw this' and go play golf instead, if this is the thanks I get for trying to help people out. I've already been told today that I have 'NO FUCKING CLUE', and you're not helping. At this point I'm not sure exactly why I bothered. > Do you think you're going to get the message out by posting to the > development mailing lists? The original mail was CC'ed to users@. I wrote a detailed blog post on this yesterday: https://www.happyassassin.net/2016/10/04/x-crash-during-fedora-update-when-system-has-hybrid-graphics-and-systemd-udev-is-in-update/ I posted that to the thread (also CC'ed to users@), and I also tweeted and G+'ed it. Either it or the original email has been picked up by enough news outlets (usually the original email, because of course news outlets don't bother to research follow-ups with actual details, sigh) that at this point my inbox is full of 'haha systemd sucks' flames. Which of course also makes me feel great about things. > Where was this discussion when we went from YUM to DNF if it was such an > issue? This didn't change at all between yum and dnf. yum wasn't written to try and survive its console dying, and neither is dnf. I don't know if changing that was considered. I mean, again, same question I asked Sam: what exactly is your *goal* here? What are trying to achieve by hounding this thread? We're not sending the Update Police around to your house to tell you how to update your systems. If you've decided that you're okay with the risks and you want to keep running 'dnf update' from a terminal in X I'm not going to *stop* you. You can go right ahead. All I know is we were getting multiple reports of multiple real users getting their systems into messed up states due to this bug, so it seems like a responsible idea to alert people to the issue and suggest that they take steps to avoid it. If we'd had all the precise details about the cause and the affected hardware at the time I wrote the original email, I'd have included it. In fact if I'd known we were going to get that detail quite soon after I sent the email, I'd have held off and sent a more detailed mail later. But I didn't know that, and I didn't want to sit on the issue for an undetermined amount of time, so I wrote about it. I'm terribly freaking sorry that it seems to have caused you such strife. > If this is such a huge issue, why doesn't the DNF team consider it a higher > priority? I don't know. I'm not the DNF team. Maybe they don't believe many people run it from inside X. Maybe they believe people run it in tmux or screen. I'm a QA monkey. I just deal with bugs. All goddamn day long, I deal with bugs. When there's a sufficiently serious one, I try to tell people about it. > Why are we asking that each DE reinvent the wheel on this when we have > DNF? That just seems > to be a complete waste of resources. We're not. The offline update mechanism is all implemented in PackageKit. The graphical package managers in both our main release blocking desktops use PackageKit. They don't have to reinvent any wheels to use the offline update mechanism, they just have to put the appropriate graphical wrappers around the relevant PackageKit bits. I personally would be rather a lot happier if dnf and all the graphical update tools we cared about shared a common base so they shared history and caches and configuration and locks and stuff properly. But they don't. I can't fix this. Please stop bugging me about it. <snip more pointless repetition> > Everything that > I have read indicates that it is minimal. I don't understand how you can write this, when we have *multiple people reporting in this very thread* that their systems were affected by exactly this bug. I mean, it's just...strange. We flat out know that quite a lot of hardware, if you run a 'dnf update' in an X terminal right now, is going to have a big problem (because there's a systemd- udev update from a fresh F24 install, and there's a system-udev update in updates-testing right now). What exactly would you have had me do? Just sit on this and pretend there was no bug and when we saw more and more people come into #fedora and complain about it, tell them the risk was minimal so they should just suck it up and get on with their lives? I mean, seriously, what do you suggest? > That isn't to say it shouldn't > be done... what I am saying is > people need to stop being alarmist OK, from now on when I see bugs causing serious real world consequences for multiple real world reporters I'll just shut up and pretend it's not happening, shall I? Wouldn't want to be all 'alarmist' about it. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
