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