Re: Upgrade path violations in F25

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 25 November 2016 at 14:15, Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 12:24:40PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> For the release of F25, has nobody run the upgrade path violations checker
>> to warn packagers about any downgrades the dist update would perform?
>>
>> A missing zero day update [only available in updates-testing] for Claws
>> Mail has hit users. Not great. And I hear there are other packages that
>> get downgraded when upgrading to F25.
>
> It seems like we should gate updates so that upgrade order is always
> preserved.
>
>

This is an unfortunate downside of the present freeze process to an extent ...

During beta we have updates-testing enabled by default (and disable
this at RC IIRC) but with the freeze in place this prevents anything
moving to stable of course.

This means during the beta the effect of the freeze isn't really noticed.

This does make things a bit more stable for the upgrade testing (and
with regards to OP there's too many packages to test everything like
that which is why QA have a strictly scoped upgrade test scenario)

If we gate in the way you imply though Matthew that means no updates
for $current will flow during the final freeze for $next unless they
have a $next freeze exception ... which could potentially be bad, or
at the least just add a lot of red tape otherwise with everything
requesting FE status "to preserve upgrade path" or similar.

I'm honestly not sure what the best option here is ... push all of
updates-testing to stable for the new release at GA? That would
"solve" this but makes the actual upgrade potentially not what was
tested... that said the bodhi 'gate' for $next is only 3 days after
which, as soon as freeze is lifted, anything pending a stable push
will go anyway...

Perhaps any package that has a EVR in $previous where there is a
matching (or higher) in testing for the incoming release should
automatically be pushed stable to preserve the upgrade path? That also
seems risky ...
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux