----- Original Message ----- > From: "Adam Williamson" <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: "For testing and quality assurance of Fedora releases" <test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2017 11:47:27 PM > Subject: Criteria proposal: move "No broken packages" requirement to Final > > So, at the Alpha go/no-go we discussed this bug: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1437299 > > and agreed that with current behaviour of anaconda and dnf, blocking > Alpha release on it didn't make sense. > > The relevant criterion here is > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_26_Alpha_Release_Criteria#No_broken_packages > : > > "There must be no errors in any package on the release-blocking images > which cause the package to fail to install." > > In practice, this criterion is only relevant to DVD images. AFAIK, it's > not possible for the other image types to contain packages they can't > install, because they all wind up deploying the bits they're actually > built *from* - they don't act as 'package repositories'. > > At the time we wrote the criterion, we had a generic DVD image with > many different packages and package groups on it. The installer GUI > allowed you to select 'optional' packages from the groups included on > the image for installation. And if any package selected had dependency > issues, the install would fail with an error. > > Quite a lot has changed since. We no longer have a generic DVD image, > only the Server DVD image, which contains only a handful of Server- > related package groups. The installer GUI no longer lets you select > optional packages; you can only select the 'environments' and 'option > groups' that are present on the DVD, and only 'mandatory' and 'default' > packages from those groups will be selected for install. And if a > selected package has dependency issues, the install will simply proceed > with that package (and anything else that requires it) omitted. > > Given all of these considerations, I propose we move the criterion to > Final. > > For the record, I'm also looking at the dnf/anaconda behaviour. It > turns out there's a few wrinkles, but I do think we should switch it > back to 'strict' mode (where any listed package not being found or > being non-installable for some reason causes an error) by default. But > it's not entirely straightforward. > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1427365 is the place to > follow that. I do still think that moving the criterion to Final would > be OK even if we changed dnf behaviour; I think for Alpha and Beta it's > enough if the default Server DVD package set installs OK, we should > make sure that the other package sets available from the Server DVD > install OK for Final. > > Thoughts? Notes? Concerns? Thanks! > -- > 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 send an email to test-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > I too concur with Roshi and +1 this to be moved to final Thanks Sumantro _______________________________________________ test mailing list -- test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
