On Fri, 2022-01-21 at 18:20 -0500, John Mellor wrote: > > Ok, so would that allowance not violate 2 of the proposed criteria: > > 1. * The displayed state of software or software sources must not > differ from their actual state. (E.g. an RPM package must not be > shown as installed when it is not, a repository must not be shown as > disabled or missing when it is enabled, etc). > 2. * The package manager must never make the system enter an > inconsistent or unbootable state. (E.g. damage the local software > database, remove wrong system files, break the bootloader, etc). We probably should carve out an allowance there, in fact, yeah. Kamil, what do you think? > > Or is the purpose of this document just to provide validation criteria > for the existing installer behaviour? Yeah, as I wrote, that's the point of release criteria: they define the most important parts of existing behaviour. We're not designing *new* desired behaviour here. -- 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
