My roadmap for a better Fedora

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Wed, 2008-11-19 at 10:07 -0900, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> 2008/11/19 Callum Lerwick <seg at haxxed.com>:
> > 1) Make it easy to report bugs. Bugzilla is complex, slow, and
> > inscrutable. We need to put a simpler layer on top of it. Reporting a
> > bug should require just a few clicks. It should automatically include
> > all the information needed for the bug report, the distro version,
> > package version, arch, and things such as how the Xorg team demands your
> > xorg.conf and Xorg.0.log. Make finding dupes easier. Collect stack
> > traces system wide and enter them in a database, which bugzilla can
> > reference and from which bugzilla bugs can be derived. A system wide
> > kerneloops. (I know this has been talked about, what's the status?)
> 
> Maybe you can help do what's necessary to get apport integrated into
> our infrastructure.
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureApport
> >
> > 2) Make it simple to roll back to a known good state. We need a "system
> > restore". I know what you're thinking, but our vastly superior,
> > centralized, system-wide package management (and lack of a whole
> > seperate "system registry" namespace) allows us to make this actually
> > work. We need per-package rollback. Period.
> 
> Let me point out that rollback itself would require testing.
Let me point out that package rollbacks will never work in general,
because updates may contain non-reversable state-full operations (e.g.
reformatting databases).

> Obsoletes, triggers, (un)post/pre scripts, config file handling... all
> this rpm functionality complicates how successful rollbacks are to get
> you back to a restored system state. How are we going to test if a
> rollback works before you ask people to perform the rollback?
This problem is not restricted to rpm. It's a general package installer
problem. IMO, the installer is the wrong layer of addressing this issue.

Ralf