The criteria looks good to me, but I agree that it might be a double edged sword to say that The package manager must never make the system enter an
inconsistent or unbootable state as suggested. An explanatory note is also a good thing to have. However I am not convinced that the wording needs to be as complex as proposed.
What if we said something like:
The package manager must never be the primary cause to damage a previously sane installed system in any way.
On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 4:54 PM Kamil Paral <kparal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
_______________________________________________On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 3:00 PM John Mellor <jmellor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: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 have to talk to the developers about that, not QA ;-)
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
--
Lukáš Růžička
FEDORA QE, RHCE
Purkyňova 115
612 45 Brno - Královo Pole
_______________________________________________ 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
