182 pending F11 stable updates. WTF?

Ralf Corsepius rc040203 at freenet.de
Tue May 12 15:59:58 UTC 2009


Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-05-11 at 13:58 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>> We've been trying to push F11 updates for a couple days now.
>> ... but you still haven't updated fedora-release, so neither mock 
>> doesn't pick them up.
> 
> That's right, I wanted to make sure they hit mirrors OK before I
> released a fedora-release with repo configuration pointing to them.  Of
> course you're free to manually turn those repos on and test it out for
> yourself.
> 
>>>> * Decouple cuttings DVDs from F11 development
>>> I honestly don't understand what you're proposing here.  No DVD from the release?
>> No, I am proposing that rel-eng chooses a set of packages to build iso 
>> etc. from, while "updates" "rolls on".
>>
>> Or differently: rel-eng composes the "Fedora" repo from those packages 
>> they choose, which "updates" continues, independently from rel-eng's 
>> activities.
>>
>>>  What do we have people download to get the release?
>> As before ... the only difference would be "Fedora" (i.e. the set of 
>> packages the DVDs etc. would have been built from) would be older than 
>> "updates" (and/or "Everything")
> 
> Which does nothing to help the upgrade and n-v-r case.
Only if "updates" is not activated upon installation.

>>>  What do
>>> we hand out at events?
>> Openly said, ... I would hand out netboot.img's, accompanied with a yum 
>> repository of "Everything" ... but that's a different topic.
>>
>>>> * Implement rawhide/testing
>>> Is this a full time thing, you always want a rawhide, and a
>>> rawhide-testing, which is driven by bodhi?
>> I haven't thought about all details, but I am inclined to lean towards a 
>> "permanent rawhide-testing".
>>
>> There would be times where it hardly would be used, but there can easily 
>> be times, when it would be heavily used (e.g. there currently is a 
>> proposal pending which would severely change perl's behavior (perl 
>> module search order and file system layout), with currently unclear 
>> outcome).
> 
> How would one choose to use it?

Similar to "updates-testing"
yum install --enable-repo=rawhide-testing "package-i-want-to-test"
etc.

>  Why would anyone choose to use bodhi if
> they were allowed to build directly into rawhide?
You mean to push a package to rawhide-testing instead of rawhide?

Primary reason: Because the maintainer is aware about his package 
containing some "nasty"/"adventurous"/"dangerous"/"experimental"
etc. changes/bugfixes, with unclear outcome and him wanting to avoid 
destabilizing the distro.

> Should we force the
> use of bodhi during freezes, and make it optional otherwise?
IMO, maintainers need _one_ single package submission UI, which should 
be used on all occasional/in all phases of development.

ATM, this would mean making bodhi mandatory and to get rid of trac etc.

Ralf





More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list