#116: Clarify https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Mediakit_FileConflicts to say that explicit Conflicts: are acceptable -----------------------+---------------------------------------------------- Reporter: adamwill | Owner: rhe Type: defect | Status: reopened Priority: major | Milestone: Component: Wiki | Version: Resolution: | Keywords: -----------------------+---------------------------------------------------- Changes (by jlaska): * cc: clumens, jwrdegoede (added) Comment: Replying to [comment:4 adamwill]: > I think we could stand to re-assess the desired behaviour here. > > Rui, James - are you aware of exactly how the installer behaves in all conflicting package cases? We have a few things to establish here: > > * What does anaconda do if packages within any of the pre-defined install groups have undeclared file conflicts? How do you mean "pre-defined"? Do you mean comps.xml groups, or the install groups shown on the reposetup step in the installer (Desktop, server, minimal etc...). I suspect you mean the list of install variants/flavors on the reposetup installer screen. As of FC13 (from what I recall), package dependency errors are presented to the user, the user can ''ignore'', or go ''back'' to change package selections. Package conflicts are treated similarly. File conflicts are also presented to the user, but they cannot be ignored. The user must return to the package selection screen and manually resolve the conflicts. I don't believe any of the behaviors changes whether the conflicts/deps are present in the repostep package groups, or during manual package selection. > * What does anaconda do if packages within any of the pre-defined install groups have declared conflicts (Conflicts: tags) > > * What does anaconda do if you manually select conflicting packages in the package selection interface - both declared and undeclared cases? > > I think we should have the answers to those questions before deciding exactly what our criteria for conflicting packages on the media ought to be... Adding clumens and jwrdegoede to the cc list (anaconda-devel). As anaconda-devel, they're in a much better position to providing accurate answers. My understanding of how this is handled (and test results) are listed above. To confirm the actual behavior, I updated my http://jlaska.fedorapeople.org/repotest/fc14 (based on rhe's work) to include 2 packages that conflict with each other, and 2 packages that contain file-conflicts, and 1 package with an unresolved dependency. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/116#comment:5> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
