Re: Upgrade path violations in F25

On Sex, 2016-11-25 at 20:32 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Sat, 2016-11-26 at 02:24 +, Sérgio Basto wrote: > > > > Every release we got always tones of updates in day 0, on upgrades > > and > > non-live versions everyone will update the computer , if we use > > netinstall iso already

Re: Upgrade path violations in F25

On Fri, 25 Nov 2016 12:47:01 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > It's worth remembering that upgrade path breakage really isn't that big > of a deal these days. dnf-system-upgrade has done a distro-sync (not > 'upgrade') for several releases now, and the instructions for upgrading > directly with dnf

Re: Upgrade path violations in F25

>>> On 11/25/2016 05:51 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: >>> So we already do pretty much what you outline above. I started the first push to f25-updates on the Friday before the release. >>> >>> >>> I think, we are talking past each other. >>> >>> You seem to be referring to "the freeze" in

Re: Upgrade path violations in F25

Adam Williamson wrote: > If we were going to do this, there would be no point having a freeze in > the first place. It'd be absurd to have a freeze, then cut release > images that ignored it. So abolish the freeze? The live respins that do not use any kind of freeze tend to just work, they're

Re: Upgrade path violations in F25

On Sat, 2016-11-26 at 06:09 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > I do not understand. I feel, we still are talking about different subjects. > > AFAICT, this did not happen with fc25. There was a 0-day update push well before F25 was released. Any remaining upgrade path issues aren't caused by the

Re: Upgrade path violations in F25

On Sat, 2016-11-26 at 06:26 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > I have been trying to push a package chain consisting of 2 new > packages,  > which are required to update a 3 package, to Fedora: > > The first package hit "the freeze". It took ~3 weeks to make it to > fc25  > stable. The second package

Re: Upgrade path violations in F25

On 11/25/2016 09:44 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Fri, 2016-11-25 at 18:38 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 11/25/2016 05:51 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: So we already do pretty much what you outline above. I started the first push to f25-updates on the Friday before the release. I think, we

Re: Upgrade path violations in F25

On 11/25/2016 06:55 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: So we already do pretty much what you outline above. I started the first push to f25-updates on the Friday before the release. I think, we are talking past each other. You seem to be referring to "the freeze" in terms of the final release push,

Re: Upgrade path violations in F25

On Sat, 2016-11-26 at 02:24 +, Sérgio Basto wrote: > Every release we got always tones of updates in day 0, on upgrades and > non-live versions everyone will update the computer , if we use > netinstall iso already include updates, only live versions could have > breaks , but shouldn't be a

Re: Upgrade path violations in F25

On Sex, 2016-11-25 at 17:55 +, Peter Robinson wrote: > > > > > > > > So we already do pretty much what you outline above. I started > > > the > > > first push to f25-updates on the Friday before the release. > > I think, we are talking past each other. > > > > You seem to be referring to

Re: Upgrade path violations in F25

On Fri, 2016-11-25 at 21:09 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > If people were ensuring that manual pushes are actually workable again, and > if we would then start strongly discouraging (or ideally outright banning) > autokarma, we would NOT have as many broken upgrade paths. It's worth

Re: Upgrade path violations in F25

On Fri, 2016-11-25 at 18:38 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 11/25/2016 05:51 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: > > > So we already do pretty much what you outline above. I started the > > first push to f25-updates on the Friday before the release. > > I think, we are talking past each other. > > You

Re: Upgrade path violations in F25

James Hogarth wrote: > This is an unfortunate downside of the present freeze process to an extent > ... Another main source of this issue is autokarma. IMHO, autokarma should NEVER be used (and should be dropped from Bodhi entirely), because it inherently breaks upgrade paths. (The solution for

Re: Upgrade path violations in F25

>> So we already do pretty much what you outline above. I started the >> first push to f25-updates on the Friday before the release. > > I think, we are talking past each other. > > You seem to be referring to "the freeze" in terms of the final release push, > while I am talking about what you'd

Re: Upgrade path violations in F25

On 11/25/2016 05:51 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: So we already do pretty much what you outline above. I started the first push to f25-updates on the Friday before the release. I think, we are talking past each other. You seem to be referring to "the freeze" in terms of the final release push,

Re: Upgrade path violations in F25

For the release of F25, has nobody run the upgrade path violations checker to warn packagers about any downgrades the dist update would perform? A missing zero day update [only available in updates-testing] for Claws Mail has hit users. Not great. And I hear there are

Re: Upgrade path violations in F25

On 11/25/2016 04:36 PM, James Hogarth wrote: On 25 November 2016 at 14:15, Matthew Miller wrote: On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 12:24:40PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: For the release of F25, has nobody run the upgrade path violations checker to warn packagers about any

Re: Upgrade path violations in F25

On 25 November 2016 at 14:15, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 12:24:40PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: >> For the release of F25, has nobody run the upgrade path violations checker >> to warn packagers about any downgrades the dist update would perform?

Re: Upgrade path violations in F25

On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 12:24:40PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > For the release of F25, has nobody run the upgrade path violations checker > to warn packagers about any downgrades the dist update would perform? > > A missing zero day update [only available in updates-testing] for Claws > Mail

Upgrade path violations in F25

For the release of F25, has nobody run the upgrade path violations checker to warn packagers about any downgrades the dist update would perform? A missing zero day update [only available in updates-testing] for Claws Mail has hit users. Not great. And I hear there are other packages that get