Re: F24 Self Contained Change: Graphical System Upgrades

2016-02-08 Thread Kamil Paral 
> Also can we ensure that gnome software/packagekit updates the dnf database
> correctly before we recommend, or even enable, this upgrade method?

> It's bad enough right now with F23 and dnf autoremoving stuff installed via
> the packagekit interfaces but add in a whole system upgrade being out of
> sync with the way dnf thinks of the system and it sounds like a recipe for
> disaster.

This is a very valid point. I believe this is the bug we're talking about:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259865
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F24 Self Contained Change: Graphical System Upgrades

2016-02-03 Thread Heiko Adams 
Am Mittwoch, den 03.02.2016, 15:00 +0100 schrieb Jan Kurik:
> First supported version is going to
> be Fedora 23->24 upgrades.
Does this mean the changes will be backported to GNOME Software 3.18?
-- 
Regards,

Heiko Adams



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F24 Self Contained Change: Graphical System Upgrades

2016-02-03 Thread Kalev Lember 
On 02/03/2016 03:16 PM, Heiko Adams wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 03.02.2016, 15:00 +0100 schrieb Jan Kurik:
>> First supported version is going to
>> be Fedora 23->24 upgrades.
> Does this mean the changes will be backported to GNOME Software 3.18?

No. The plan is to put GNOME Software 3.20 in F23, so that the rest of
the GNOME stays at 3.18, but GNOME Software gets a major version update.

This is just for F23 to get system upgrade support in; later on in F24+
we'll stick with the regular GNOME updates policy where we don't put
major updates in a stable Fedora release.

-- 
Kalev
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F24 Self Contained Change: Graphical System Upgrades

2016-02-03 Thread Matthew Miller 
On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 03:21:26PM +0100, Kalev Lember wrote:
> >> We'll implement a graphical user interface for system upgrades. The
> >> implementation will use PackageKit and the libhif stack as a backend
> >> and GNOME Software as a frontend. First supported version is going to
> >> be Fedora 23->24 upgrades.
> > Since we just agreed to officially support "n-2" upgrades, will this
> > also include F22->F24?
> No, but it will include F23->F25 in the future. It gets a bit too messy
> to backport this to F22.

Okay cool. We need to be careful about the messaging around this, then.

> > *Everything* can benefit from testing, and we don't have enough
> > documentation on what to do.
> > 
> > The current documentation _does_ explain how to do an upgrade, and that
> > should be updated as part of this.
> > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/23/html/Installation_Guide/chap-upgrading.html
> Right; I'll fill these in when we have actual packages available to test
> things.

Thanks!


-- 
Matthew Miller

Fedora Project Leader
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F24 Self Contained Change: Graphical System Upgrades

2016-02-03 Thread Brian C. Lane 
On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 03:00:53PM +0100, Jan Kurik wrote:
> = Proposed Self Contained Change: Graphical System Upgrades =
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/GraphicalSystemUpgrades

This change is really light on details (or progress?). How is this going
to be different (and why) from the dnf system-upgrade plugin? Since it
is GNOME Software related I guess it is going to run while the system is
active, not during reboot? Part of the reason for fedup/system-upgrade
was to avoid breakage resulting from upgrading changing running code.

-- 
Brian C. Lane | Anaconda Team | IRC: bcl #anaconda | Port Orchard, WA (PST8PDT)
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F24 Self Contained Change: Graphical System Upgrades

2016-02-03 Thread Kalev Lember 
On 02/03/2016 03:11 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 03:00:53PM +0100, Jan Kurik wrote:
>> We'll implement a graphical user interface for system upgrades. The
>> implementation will use PackageKit and the libhif stack as a backend
>> and GNOME Software as a frontend. First supported version is going to
>> be Fedora 23->24 upgrades.
> 
> Since we just agreed to officially support "n-2" upgrades, will this
> also include F22->F24?

No, but it will include F23->F25 in the future. It gets a bit too messy
to backport this to F22.

>> == Scope ==
> 
> The change proposal has 
> 
>   "N/A (not a System Wide Change)"
> 
> under both "How To Test" and "Documentation". This makes me sad. I see
> that the template has that at the bottom of the boilerplate there, but
> *especially* with testing, I don't think we should encourage that.
> These sections don't need to be extensive, but it'd _really_ help if
> they have at least a basic outline.
> 
> *Everything* can benefit from testing, and we don't have enough
> documentation on what to do.
> 
> The current documentation _does_ explain how to do an upgrade, and that
> should be updated as part of this.
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/23/html/Installation_Guide/chap-upgrading.html

Right; I'll fill these in when we have actual packages available to test
things.

-- 
Kalev
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F24 Self Contained Change: Graphical System Upgrades

2016-02-03 Thread Matthew Miller 
On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 03:00:53PM +0100, Jan Kurik wrote:
> We'll implement a graphical user interface for system upgrades. The
> implementation will use PackageKit and the libhif stack as a backend
> and GNOME Software as a frontend. First supported version is going to
> be Fedora 23->24 upgrades.

Since we just agreed to officially support "n-2" upgrades, will this
also include F22->F24?



> == Scope ==

The change proposal has 

  "N/A (not a System Wide Change)"

under both "How To Test" and "Documentation". This makes me sad. I see
that the template has that at the bottom of the boilerplate there, but
*especially* with testing, I don't think we should encourage that.
These sections don't need to be extensive, but it'd _really_ help if
they have at least a basic outline.

*Everything* can benefit from testing, and we don't have enough
documentation on what to do.

The current documentation _does_ explain how to do an upgrade, and that
should be updated as part of this.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/23/html/Installation_Guide/chap-upgrading.html

-- 
Matthew Miller

Fedora Project Leader
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F24 Self Contained Change: Graphical System Upgrades

2016-02-03 Thread James Hogarth 
On 3 February 2016 at 15:27, Brian C. Lane  wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 03:00:53PM +0100, Jan Kurik wrote:
> > = Proposed Self Contained Change: Graphical System Upgrades =
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/GraphicalSystemUpgrades
>
> This change is really light on details (or progress?). How is this going
> to be different (and why) from the dnf system-upgrade plugin? Since it
> is GNOME Software related I guess it is going to run while the system is
> active, not during reboot? Part of the reason for fedup/system-upgrade
> was to avoid breakage resulting from upgrading changing running code.
>
>
Also can we ensure that gnome software/packagekit updates the dnf database
correctly before we recommend, or even enable, this upgrade method?

It's bad enough right now with F23 and dnf autoremoving stuff installed via
the packagekit interfaces but add in a whole system upgrade being out of
sync with the way dnf thinks of the system and it sounds like a recipe for
disaster.

Bonus points for dnf history showing packagekit actions too ;)
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org