Re: Release criterion proposal: modify conflicts/dependencies criterion to cover all critical packaging errors
On Tue, 2012-12-04 at 13:17 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > On 12/04/2012 01:03 PM, Kamil Paral wrote: > >> We agreed in principle at the meeting to amend the criterion to cover > >> any critical packaging error. So I propose this wording: > >> > >> There must be no errors in any package on the DVD or release-blocking > >> live desktop media which cause the package to fail to install. Such > >> critical errors include, but are not limited to, undeclared conflicts > >> (explicit Conflicts: tags are acceptable) and unresolved dependencies > > I'm in favor of this new one. > > As am I Thanks. The inclusion of 'live desktop media' is slightly tricky, I should have unpacked that: it's basically impossible for a package to get onto the live media if it's not installable, as it has to be installed to build the media, but including the phrase gives us a criterion to use when a package is blocking the creation of the live media... -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Release criterion proposal: modify conflicts/dependencies criterion to cover all critical packaging errors
On 12/04/2012 01:03 PM, Kamil Paral wrote: We agreed in principle at the meeting to amend the criterion to cover any critical packaging error. So I propose this wording: There must be no errors in any package on the DVD or release-blocking live desktop media which cause the package to fail to install. Such critical errors include, but are not limited to, undeclared conflicts (explicit Conflicts: tags are acceptable) and unresolved dependencies I'm in favor of this new one. As am I -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Release criterion proposal: modify conflicts/dependencies criterion to cover all critical packaging errors
> We agreed in principle at the meeting to amend the criterion to cover > any critical packaging error. So I propose this wording: > > There must be no errors in any package on the DVD or release-blocking > live desktop media which cause the package to fail to install. Such > critical errors include, but are not limited to, undeclared conflicts > (explicit Conflicts: tags are acceptable) and unresolved dependencies I'm in favor of this new one. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Release criterion proposal: modify conflicts/dependencies criterion to cover all critical packaging errors
On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 10:14:15 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: There must be no errors in any package on the DVD or release-blocking live desktop media which cause the package to fail to install. Such critical errors include, but are not limited to, undeclared conflicts (explicit Conflicts: tags are acceptable) and unresolved dependencies Comments, thoughts, rotten fruit? Thanks! I like the suggestion being more general, rather than trying to add more special cases. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Release criterion proposal: modify conflicts/dependencies criterion to cover all critical packaging errors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=873817 came up for discussion in the blocker meeting today, and highlighted an inadequacy in the criteria. An Alpha criterion currently reads: "There must be no file conflicts (cases where the files in some packages conflict but the packages have explicit Conflicts: tags are acceptable) or unresolved package dependencies during a media-based (DVD) install" However, the intent here is that all packages on the media should be installable, excepting combinations of packages with explicit Conflicts: between them. This bug shows a case where the error isn't a non-explict conflict or a bad dep, but a scriptlet error. Clearly, the criterion is too narrow. We agreed in principle at the meeting to amend the criterion to cover any critical packaging error. So I propose this wording: There must be no errors in any package on the DVD or release-blocking live desktop media which cause the package to fail to install. Such critical errors include, but are not limited to, undeclared conflicts (explicit Conflicts: tags are acceptable) and unresolved dependencies Comments, thoughts, rotten fruit? Thanks! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
