On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>> That's an implementation detail. It's not a capability-driven
>> description of which packages should actually be in the minimal package
>> set, as was discussed earlier in the thread.
>
> Merely stating that if you're linking to what the
Adam Williamson (awill...@redhat.com) said:
> On Tue, 2012-01-31 at 10:52 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > Petr Schindler (pschi...@redhat.com) said:
> > > > Yeah. As far as QA is concerned, the key questions are 'is there a
> > > > minimal package set present, does an install with that package
On Tue, 2012-01-31 at 10:52 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Petr Schindler (pschi...@redhat.com) said:
> > > Yeah. As far as QA is concerned, the key questions are 'is there a
> > > minimal package set present, does an install with that package set
> > > complete properly, does it boot'. What's *i
On Tue, 2012-01-31 at 10:52 -0500, Petr Schindler wrote:
> > From: "Adam Williamson"
> > To: "For testing and quality assurance of Fedora releases"
> >
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 4:51:56 AM
> > Subject: Re: New criterion for install
Petr Schindler (pschi...@redhat.com) said:
> > Yeah. As far as QA is concerned, the key questions are 'is there a
> > minimal package set present, does an install with that package set
> > complete properly, does it boot'. What's *in* it is not really our
> > concern.
>
> So new beta criteria sho
> From: "Adam Williamson"
> To: "For testing and quality assurance of Fedora releases"
>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 4:51:56 AM
> Subject: Re: New criterion for installation with minimal set of packages
>
> On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 21:56 -0500, Jon S
On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 21:56 -0500, Jon Stanley wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > Yeah, this is kind of problematic, because I don't really want the
> > release criteria to prescribe exactly what the 'minimal' package set
> > should include. Perhaps we should j
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Yeah, this is kind of problematic, because I don't really want the
> release criteria to prescribe exactly what the 'minimal' package set
> should include. Perhaps we should just explicitly refer to 'the
> installer's "minimal" package set
On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 19:57 -0500, Jon Stanley wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > We could phrase it a little bit more similarly to the existing default
> > install criterion:
> >
> > "The installer must be able to complete package installation with the
> > def
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> We could phrase it a little bit more similarly to the existing default
> install criterion:
>
> "The installer must be able to complete package installation with the
> default package set for each supported installation method"
>
> Perhaps
On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 11:25 -0500, Petr Schindler wrote:
> I propose new beta criterion:
>
> "The installer must be able to install system with minimal usable set of
> packages."
>
> There is test case [1] associated with alpha, I'd change it to beta release
> level.
>
> [1]
> https://fedora
I propose new beta criterion:
"The installer must be able to install system with minimal usable set of
packages."
There is test case [1] associated with alpha, I'd change it to beta release
level.
[1]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Package_Sets_Minimal_Package_Install
--
test ma
12 matches
Mail list logo
