On Sat, 2014-11-29 at 10:17 -0500, Gene Czarcinski wrote: > > So, if you're trying to match the package set of the current TC/RC, the > > repos for your compose should be 'fedora' (which is the 'stable' repo) > > and bleed. Do not use updates-testing. You also will want to make sure > > you have the f21 branch of spin-kickstarts, and try to use the git > > commit that was the latest at the time the compose was run. > I can see some pluses to what you are doing but also some minuses. The > pluses are that you are geting some critical stuff tested sooner rather > than later. The minuses are that anyone doing a netinstall will not get > any of these packages. Only those fixes that are on the Fedora-Server > DVD or on a Live CD/DVD will get more testing. Well, sort of. The repos used by default for a network install are the same as the ones enabled on an installed system. So, until we shipped the fedora-release that disabled updates-testing by default, network installs used packages from updates-testing. Now, they don't, but to me that's not a "plus / minus" thing, just...the state of the world? I mean, it's what we have an updates-testing system for in the first place. You can still use updates-testing for a network install if you really want to (by explicitly adding it as a supplementary repo). We do get the blocker/FE fix updates pushed stable as fast as possible, it's just that that's not really fast enough to stay on top of the release validation treadmill. Also there are some updates where there's an obvious catch-22 situation - the clearest one is lorax and pungi, the only way we can test those (and therefore provide karma on them so they can be pushed stable) is to do a compose with them. anaconda is in the same situation to a certain extent, livecd-tools, things like that. > Also, I am not trying to duplicate what will be in the final release so > much as to create Live images which include potential updates. I am > still testing and if something out in updates-testing is going to break > things, I want to know that so I can report it and, if possible, propose > a fix. This is fine and useful, but post-Final freeze, you can't assume that everything in updates-testing will eventually be on the final release images - in fact it most likely won't. Only blocker fixes, and FE fixes that are available and apparently safe at the time of the RC compose, will be. > > Also, I have bought into this Workstation product as well as the other > Live "nonproducts" (really, I consider them to be "semi-products"). I > am trying to figure out my new install/reinstall process ... should I > create my own Live image which has everything I want or use a standard > Live install followed by a post-install script to add in the rest of the > stuff I want. > > I will still b e creating my own Live images because there are some > packages I have locally updated which need to be there for the install. > For example, my version of grubby updated to support booting off a btrfs > subvolume. > > Gene -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
