Re: criterion proposal: upgrading across 2 releases

On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 10:46:55 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > We have never really gone to any lengths to test or support N-1 upgrades > with 3rd party repositories or non-repo software either. That's a > different question. >From a user's perspective, the value of system-upgrade depends on its

Re: criterion proposal: upgrading across 2 releases

On Tue, 2015-11-24 at 21:57 -0500, Richard Ryniker wrote: > On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 10:46:55 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > We have never really gone to any lengths to test or support N-1 upgrades > > with 3rd party repositories or non-repo software either.  That's a > > different question. > >

Fedora Rawhide 20151124 compose check report

Missing expected images: Cloud disk raw i386 Cloud disk raw x86_64 Cloud_atomic disk raw x86_64 Workstation live i386 Workstation live x86_64 Images in this compose but not Rawhide 20151123: Scientific_kde live i386 Scientific_kde live x86_64 Kde live x86_64 No images in Rawhide 20151123 but

Re: criterion proposal: upgrading across 2 releases

On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 07:52:47 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > I've upgraded several family members directly from Fedora 21 to Fedora 23 > in the last week with no issues whatsoever (of course, I also curate > their repository selection, so they don't end up with incompatible > packages). Aye,

Re: criterion proposal: upgrading across 2 releases

On Tue, 2015-11-24 at 13:28 -0500, Richard Ryniker wrote: > On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 07:52:47 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > > I've upgraded several family members directly from Fedora 21 to Fedora 23 > > in the last week with no issues whatsoever (of course, I also curate > > their repository

Re: criterion proposal: upgrading across 2 releases

On Tue, 2015-11-24 at 07:52 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > 1) Way back when we were doing Anaconda-based upgrades, I think it > amounted to a technological limitation (please correct me if my > information is wrong here). I think it wasn't exactly technically *impossible*, but it was

Re: criterion proposal: upgrading across 2 releases

> I believe a failure to upgrade from N-2 to N should not block the N > release. The reason is limited resources, both for tests and for changes > to fix problems. These resources are more valuable applied to the N > release than to something two releases in the past. > > If someone wants to

rawhide report: 20151124 changes

Compose started at Tue Nov 24 05:15:03 UTC 2015 Broken deps for i386 -- [IQmol] IQmol-2.3.0-9.fc24.i686 requires libboost_serialization.so.1.58.0 IQmol-2.3.0-9.fc24.i686 requires libboost_iostreams.so.1.58.0

Re: testcase proposal: joining bios+uefi in system upgrade section

> On Mon, 2015-11-23 at 10:36 -0500, Kamil Paral wrote: > > > Oh, one more thing - similarly to _bios and _uefi test cases, I'd > > like to change existing _workstation_encrypted test case to just > > _encrypted test case - it shouldn't matter which package set is > > installed to verify that

Re: Off Topic -- "X-BeenThere: " missing from list message headers.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/23/2015 08:25 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 19:50:00 -0500 Stephen Gallagher > wrote: > >> A similar and more annoying problem is that mailman 3 lost the >> X-List-Administrivia header (and didn't replace

Re: criterion proposal: upgrading across 2 releases

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/24/2015 06:48 AM, Kamil Paral wrote: > That would be FESCo. If more people hold your opinion, we should > probably file a ticket and ask them. It's definitely a valid > opinion. And it would definitely be easier for QA. But in this > case, I