On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 10:21:11AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: <snip> > I propose we re-word the Alpha criterion to: > > "When installing with a release-blocking dedicated installer image, > the installer must be able to install the default package set." > > and add a Beta criterion: > > "When installing with a release-blocking dedicated installer image, > the default package set must be correct." > > with an explanatory note that 'correct' means the package set intended > by the group responsible for the image - Product WG, FESCo or whoever. > +1 to the rewording. > I'm not sure whether we need a requirement for non-default package > sets. Note that the case for offline media is already covered by Alpha > criterion "No broken packages": > > "There must be no errors in any package on the release-blocking images > which cause the package to fail to install." > > network installs using updates media don't really need to block on > package set issues, as they can be fixed. That leaves the question of > whether we'd want to block the release if, say, there was a bug which > meant that if you tried to netinst KDE without the updates repos > enabled, it failed. What do folks think about that? I'd be for blocking on a broken netinst (like your example), but if the repos are the same used for image creation this shouldn't really be an issue, right? (Yeah, I know I used the "S" word :p ) AIUI things would break in other places if this particular issue was to come up. Is my understanding correct? -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
