If my vote counts, I am +1 as well. Thanks Adam for following up. Regards, Jan On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 2:49 AM, John Dulaney <jdulaney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 11:17:27AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: >> 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! > > I am +1. > > John. > _______________________________________________ > test mailing list -- test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Jan Kuřík Platform & Fedora Program Manager Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkynova 99/71, 612 45 Brno, Czech Republic _______________________________________________ test mailing list -- test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
