On Thu, 2018-07-05 at 10:38 +0100, Russel Winder wrote: > On Tue, 2018-07-03 at 20:14 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Sun, 2018-07-01 at 09:19 +0100, Russel Winder wrote: > > > I wonder if this > > > episode indicates that there should be work done to make sure that a > > > broken > > > dnf can never be installed? > > > > How do you propose we do that? > > Using a two stage system: 1. take a one step back version of Fedora Rawhide > and add the new dnf; then run a few tests such as "dnf check-update --refresh" > and "dnf upgrade". 2. take a current version of Fedora Rawhide and add the new > dnf; then run the same set of tests. This should ensure dnf dependencies are > correct and that "dnf upgrade" never causes a seg fault. > > I would have thought the dnf people would have been doing this sort of system > testing given just how important dnf is to Fedora Rawhide. To have people > (it's not just me) in a situation of not being able to amend their system with > dnf should I feel cause deep embarrassment to the dnf people despite the > caveat emptor nature of Fedora Rawhide. But the new dnf doesn't break everywhere; I updated to it and didn't hit any of the reported issues. I'm sure the DNF developers *do* test it on their local machines, but this is not some sort of cast-iron guarantee that it will never fail anywhere else. -- 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 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/test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/PFDRV4ASN5RT2QJ4TCDWO4RT22EN6UGH/
