Re: Broken packages in Fedora 28: Need admin/rel-eng help

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

 



On Wed, 2019-02-27 at 15:35 -0500, Irina Boverman wrote:
> I have a number of qpid packages promoted to "stable" that depend on
> qpid-proton-0.26.0-1.f28. However, someone blocked this package from
> being promoted, and as a result, updated qpid packages cannot be
> installed. We need to either:
> - Push qpid-proton-0.26.0-1.f28 to "stable" ASAP, or
> - Remove updated qpid packages from Fedora 28
> I am not able to do either action, so I need rel eng
> advise/assistance on how to resolve this issue. Also see 
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-6b8b896b65 for
> reasons why this package was blocked.

The builds that depended on qpid-proton-0.26.0-1.f28 should have been
included in the same update as it so they could move through the
lifecycle together, atomically. If this update had included them, they
would not have been pushed stable without this build. In the future, I
recommend putting builds that depend on each other in the same update
to avoid this problem.

As for dealing with the problem now that they are pushed, it sounds
like there are backwards incompatible changes in the proposed update.
Is that correct? If so, the Fedora Updates Policy does say that we
shouldn't push backwards incompatible changes to stable releases[0]. If
not, it seems that three testers did think there were issues with the
update, and Bodhi unpushed it automatically because it reached the
negative karma threshold (-3).

If you think you have a case for why you should push a backwards
incompatible update to a stable release, you can ask for an exception
from FESCo to the policy[1]. If you decide to do that, please explain
the situation so that FESCo understands the motivation behind the
request.

If you decide to remove the other builds from Fedora 28, you might need
to raise the epoch on those packages and make a new update to roll them
back. Otherwise any users who may have updated to those packages will
not get the rollback. Or perhaps someone else has a better solution
than that…


[0] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/#philosophy
[1] https://pagure.io/fesco/new_issue

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [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