Re: new criterion proposal: Graphical package managers (take #2)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, 2022-01-21 at 14:20 -0500, John Mellor wrote:
> > 
> I am unclear from this proposal on what is supposed to happen if a 
> package is not completely installed.  E.g: a powerdown or other outage 
> causes the post-install script in an installed rpm to not be run.  A few 
> packages like the kernel can take ten minutes to install properly, and 
> you may not have enough battery left to get that done when the power 
> goes out.  The package and its dependencies are installed, but not 
> initialized correctly.  Does it force an installer continuation or redo 
> at boot time for these partial installs, does in uninstall the app and 
> its whole chain of dependencies, or does it just leave things in a 
> corrupted state?

The release criteria aren't design documents. We're not defining the
intended behavior, exactly; we're defining a certain subset of known
expected behavior which we require to *work*.

The situations you describe are, essentially, "disaster recovery"
scenarios. What our current package managers do in this scenario is
"leave things in a corrupted state". That's been the case for years and
will likely continue to be so. It seems kinda pointless to have a
release criterion asserting that this is the case, and we do not do
'enforced-product-design-by-release-criteria' (where we make up release
criteria that describe how we'd *like* things to behave, and then try
and use that as a stick to make the developers make things actually
behave that way).

So, I'd say there isn't really anything useful we could do by writing
criteria around the scenario of interrupted updates.

It's worth noting that we do have one rpm-ostree based release-blocking
edition at present - IoT - and we may have more (e.g. Silverblue and/or
CoreOS) in future. For rpm-ostree based installs, we can and do assert
in the release criteria that rollbacks and rebases work, for recovery
from broken update attempts:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria#rpm-ostree_requirements

because that is how things are designed to work, and it's clearly
important enough that we should make it part of the release criteria
that things actually work that way. But for traditional RPM-based
installs, it doesn't really seem like something we can usefully address
in the criteria to me.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA
IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha
https://www.happyassassin.net

_______________________________________________
test mailing list -- test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Photo Sharing]     [Yosemite Forum]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux