On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 14:28 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > James Laska wrote: > > Did you upgrade your system from F14? If so, depending on when you > > upgraded, you may be seeing > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=699198 > > > > The current proposed workaround is to run: > > $ systemctl enable rsyslog.service > > According to the bug this is being ignored as a vital issue as it does > not "clearly hit any release criteria". In this case, I think, the > release criteria needs to be defined to state clearly that logging needs > to function properly. If anaconda were to suddenly stop logging install > events I'm sure there would be 3 or 4 people immediately on the job of > fixing the problem. There's a case to be made for that, certainly. It's worth noting, though, that the fact that this is an upgrade-only issue and the workaround is simple and easy to document was the major factor in rejecting this for blocker status. We would probably have rejected it even if there were an explicit criterion. > The bug also mentions the workaround will be "clearly documented". Where > will that be? In CommonBugs: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_F15_bugs > From my browsing of the users list many people use > preupgrade so many people will not know their logging has ceased to > function properly unless a zero-day (or close) fix is released. It will be; the update is already in -testing. > This brings me to my next rant topic: > Is preupgrade considered an 'official' method of upgrading between > releases? Yes. > If not, then preupgrade should be removed from the repos. If > so, then the release criteria is in dire need of fixing. That's debatable. =) To take the practical tack, upgrading is an incredibly difficult problem to solve, as the variables involved are practically infinite (consider every possible permutation of packages from the official repositories...). No distro in Fedora's position has ever made more than a 'best effort' commitment for upgrades; frankly, they often don't work perfectly, and that's never likely to change. We have fairly modest criteria and general expectations for upgrades; to roughly codify that, they'd be 'upgrading from a bone stock install should more or less work, with any problems relatively easy to fix'. > Then there are > those that use the DVD to upgrade. I assume they will be broken as well. Well, you can enable the updates repository during a DVD-based upgrade, and I expect many will do that. But if you don't, yes, you would have to enable the service manually post-upgrade. We did mark the bug as NTH, so if a fix had been written in time, it would have been included in the release, but at present it looks like that won't be the case. Anyone upgrading with the 'updates' repo enabled will have this fixed, however. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
