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

John Mellor <jmellor@xxxxxxxxxx> · Tue, 25 Jan 2022 08:58:35 -0500



    On 2022-01-25 05:02, Kamil Paral wrote:

    
          On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 6:19
            PM Adam Williamson <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
            wrote:

          
          On Mon, 2022-01-24 at
            15:28 +0100, Kamil Paral wrote:

            > If this is about power outages, I don't see any problem
            here. A power

            > outage is not the package manager's failure, and so
            those criteria don't

            > apply.

            
            I can see someone proposing it, though. "I lost power in the
            middle of

            an update and now the system is unbootable". Whether it was
            "caused" by

            the power failure or the package manager is kind of a matter
            of

            perspective. I just figured it might be worth a footnote to
            explicitly

            specify that such situations aren't covered, for clarity.
            It's

            technically true that a system whose power got cut could
            fail all sorts

            of criteria, I guess...it just feels more likely that
            someone might

            think this criterion means the package manager is meant to
            handle it, I

            guess.

          
          OK, so what about adding a note like this:
          

          Note: Systems in an inconsistent state
          While the package manager must not be the primary cause
            for breaking a system (unbootable, invalid internal
            structures, etc), it doesn't have to '''prevent''' these
            events from happening. So if there's e.g. a power outage
            during its operation or a package with harmful scriptlets is
            installed, which breaks the system, this is not the fault of
            the package manager and the criteria above are not
            considered violated. Similarly, when the package manager
            operates on an already broken system (e.g. with an
            inconsistent rpm database), the correct behavior cannot be
            guaranteed, and therefore the criteria also don't apply.

          
    I'm ok with that or something similar, but it does point out the
      need to fill a large gap in keeping the machine sane when
      something unexpected happens. Perhaps F36 can expedite btrfs gui
      and cli tools to roll back to the last known sane state in both
      the normal and diagnostic images.  You know, like the Sun
      time-slider on the gui and maybe even the Apple time machine
      functionality.

    
    --
    John Mellor

    
_______________________________________________
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