On Tue, 2022-01-25 at 11:02 +0100, Kamil Paral wrote: > > 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. That sounds fine to me. Lukas' is shorter, but yours to me is clearer about the purpose of the note, so I like it more. Thanks! -- 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
