On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 11:48:00 +0100,
Michael Schwendt wrote:
But I claim that the ordinary user doesn't upgrade to updates-testing and
doesn't want to upgrade to updates-testing due to some of the stuff that's
dumped in there. Too many updates, too many packages updated too frequently.
We
On Sat, 13 Dec 2014 11:51:02 +0100, drago01 wrote:
> So how about:
>
> 1) Add epoch: N to all FN packages
> 2) Ignore people complaining about epoch being ugly
> 3) FN+1 > FN is always the case because of 1
> 4) Profit
>
> ;)
That sounds like the years old "Dist Epoch" proposal, where a new epo
On Sat, 13 Dec 2014 11:48:00 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> updates. And quality ensurance needs to start somewhere. We can't dump
Typo here: make that quality "assurance"
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2014 12:16:34 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
>> Awesome, so now you have me running a test install of F20 with R just
>> to see what happens in this situation. There's certainly no other way I
>> could be using my damn mor
On Fri, 12 Dec 2014 12:16:34 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Awesome, so now you have me running a test install of F20 with R just
> to see what happens in this situation. There's certainly no other way I
> could be using my damn morning.
Well, the problems are real. Unresolvable deps in many ca
On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 19:37 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2014 08:58:02 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 11:00 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > > On Fri, 12 Dec 2014 00:12:37 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > >
> > > > I haven't seen a single person re
On Fri, 12 Dec 2014 08:58:02 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 11:00 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Dec 2014 00:12:37 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> > > I haven't seen a single person report a dep issue of this nature,
> > > and I spent most of release day
On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 11:00 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2014 00:12:37 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > I haven't seen a single person report a dep issue of this nature,
> > and I spent most of release day in #fedora, and have been
> > following G+, forum, and various news
On Fri, 12 Dec 2014 00:12:37 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I haven't seen a single person report a dep issue of this nature, and I
> spent most of release day in #fedora, and have been following G+,
> forum, and various news site feedback since.
Violated upgrade path issues still hit users. On
On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 06:06 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 12/08/2014 08:26 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-12-08 at 07:36 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >
> > > > Just for the purpose of testing upgrade.img, you can simply
> > > > enable updates-testing if it turns out you have a
On 12/08/2014 08:26 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2014-12-08 at 07:36 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Just for the purpose of testing upgrade.img, you can simply enable
updates-testing if it turns out you have a situation like this and you
need a package from u-t to make the upgrade package s
On Mon, 2014-12-08 at 07:36 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > Just for the purpose of testing upgrade.img, you can simply enable
> > updates-testing if it turns out you have a situation like this and you
> > need a package from u-t to make the upgrade package set viable.
> This is not true. They ar
On 12/04/2014 06:43 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2014-12-04 at 06:16 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Untrue. All you need to do is to apply the "after release" update policy.
I.e.: push updates to "updates" on both Fedora(N) and Fedora(N+1). When
you need to cut a snapshot, move Fedora(N+
On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 16:30:51 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Example: docker-io-1.3.2-2.fc20, a CVE fix, is broken, DOA. Any earlier
> build is insecure. docker-io-1.3.2-4.fc20 works fine. However, we have
> docker-io-1.3.2-2.fc21 in F21 stable (as far as I've been able to tell
> it works fine on
On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 00:09 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > It happens. Building software is hard.
>
> That's all you add here? Seriously?
Yes, because I don't really think this is going anywhere. If you really
want to see a change here, draft up a comprehensive proposal to change
the updates
On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 10:18:39 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> It seems like you're expecting a post-release quality experience for
> people testing pre-releases.
Nah, just the possibility to _upgrade_ to F21 pre-release with less risk
of running into broken deps or a clearly violated upgrade path.
On Thu, 2014-12-04 at 15:28 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> If it happens _before_ release of F21, it leads to bad experience from
> people who want to evaluate F21 early and find that a fresh install is
> the only option whereas an upgrade of a older dist runs into broken deps.
It seems like yo
On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 03:35:20 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-12-04 at 12:12 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 02:25:21 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> > > How are you supposed to build
> > > a perfectly legitimate minor version update for all three
> > > curr
On Thu, 2014-12-04 at 12:12 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 02:25:21 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > How are you supposed to build
> > a perfectly legitimate minor version update for all three
> > currently-supported releases at the same time, with that rule?
>
> _At the
On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 02:25:21 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> How are you supposed to build
> a perfectly legitimate minor version update for all three
> currently-supported releases at the same time, with that rule?
_At the same time_!
Publish the minor version _test_ updates for all the release
On Thu, 2014-12-04 at 10:28 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 12:41:41 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > Nothing's broken. Fedora 21 is not yet released. There's no reasonable
> > expectation that upgrades should work perfectly at this point. An issue
>
> Are you kidding?
>
On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 12:41:41 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Nothing's broken. Fedora 21 is not yet released. There's no reasonable
> expectation that upgrades should work perfectly at this point. An issue
Are you kidding?
Fedora 21 -- when released -- will be affected by the problem in the same
On Thu, 2014-12-04 at 06:16 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Untrue. All you need to do is to apply the "after release" update policy.
> I.e.: push updates to "updates" on both Fedora(N) and Fedora(N+1). When
> you need to cut a snapshot, move Fedora(N+1) updates into the main
> repository.
Hum.
On 12/03/2014 09:41 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2014-12-03 at 18:21 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 12/03/2014 05:54 PM, Neal Becker wrote:
What is needed here, is an option to yum to use updates-testing _only_ to solve
broken deps.
This would be playing with symptoms. What we need is
On Wed, 2014-12-03 at 18:21 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 12/03/2014 05:54 PM, Neal Becker wrote:
>
> > What is needed here, is an option to yum to use updates-testing _only_ to
> > solve
> > broken deps.
>
> This would be playing with symptoms. What we need is a fix to the Fedora
> release
On Wed, 2014-12-03 at 16:38 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 08:07:10 -0500, Neal Becker wrote:
>
> > fedup gave me the following warnings:
> >
> >kde-runtime-libs-4.14.3-2.fc20.x86_64 requires exiv2-
> > libs-0.23-5.fc20.x86_64,
> > OpenEXR-libs-1.7.1-6.fc20.x86_64, libg
On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 11:54:06 -0500, Neal Becker wrote:
> I don't want to use updates-testing indiscriminatly, because there's no
> telling
> what that will drag in.
Updates-testing isn't as bad as you may think.
Actually, all Fedora users ought to take a look at updates-testing regularly
and w
On 12/03/2014 05:54 PM, Neal Becker wrote:
What is needed here, is an option to yum to use updates-testing _only_ to solve
broken deps.
This would be playing with symptoms. What we need is a fix to the Fedora
release process. It simply is broken and has always been broken, ever
since Fedora
On Qua, 2014-12-03 at 10:45 -0500, Neal Becker wrote:
> Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 08:07:10 -0500, Neal Becker wrote:
> >
> >> fedup gave me the following warnings:
> >>
> >>kde-runtime-libs-4.14.3-2.fc20.x86_64 requires exiv2-
> >> libs-0.23-5.fc20.x86_64,
> >> OpenE
Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 12/03/2014 07:38 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 08:07:10 -0500, Neal Becker wrote:
>>
>>> fedup gave me the following warnings:
>>>
>>> kde-runtime-libs-4.14.3-2.fc20.x86_64 requires exiv2-
>>> libs-0.23-5.fc20.x86_64,
>>> OpenEXR-libs-1.7.1-6.fc20.x
On 12/03/2014 07:38 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 08:07:10 -0500, Neal Becker wrote:
fedup gave me the following warnings:
kde-runtime-libs-4.14.3-2.fc20.x86_64 requires exiv2-
libs-0.23-5.fc20.x86_64,
OpenEXR-libs-1.7.1-6.fc20.x86_64, libgcrypt-1.5.3-2.fc20.x86_64,
ilmba
On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 10:45:29 -0500, Neal Becker wrote:
> So basically, update f20->f21 is just broken, if you want kde.
Which is because the same updates have been published for F20 already,
whereas the corresponding builds for F21 are still in updates-testing.
This is something that has never b
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 08:07:10 -0500, Neal Becker wrote:
>
>> fedup gave me the following warnings:
>>
>>kde-runtime-libs-4.14.3-2.fc20.x86_64 requires exiv2-
>> libs-0.23-5.fc20.x86_64,
>> OpenEXR-libs-1.7.1-6.fc20.x86_64, libgcrypt-1.5.3-2.fc20.x86_64,
>> ilmbase-1.
On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 08:07:10 -0500, Neal Becker wrote:
> fedup gave me the following warnings:
>
>kde-runtime-libs-4.14.3-2.fc20.x86_64 requires exiv2-
> libs-0.23-5.fc20.x86_64,
> OpenEXR-libs-1.7.1-6.fc20.x86_64, libgcrypt-1.5.3-2.fc20.x86_64,
> ilmbase-1.0.3-7.fc20.x86_64, libwebp-0.3.1-
fedup gave me the following warnings:
kde-runtime-libs-4.14.3-2.fc20.x86_64 requires exiv2-
libs-0.23-5.fc20.x86_64,
OpenEXR-libs-1.7.1-6.fc20.x86_64, libgcrypt-1.5.3-2.fc20.x86_64,
ilmbase-1.0.3-7.fc20.x86_64, libwebp-0.3.1-3.fc20.x86_64
armadillo-4.500.0-1.fc20.x86_64 requires atlas-3.
35 matches
Mail list logo
