On 2011-08-19 20:41, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Updates can be pulled out of updates-testing at any moment, which makes a
lot of sense, but which means that users with updates-testing enabled will
end up with the EVR going backwards, something that's not even allowed in
Rawhide.
Enabling
Looks like I forgot to reply to this:
Adam Williamson wrote:
That's ass backwards, though. We need the testing _to determine if the
things should be in the release_. Really, I think if you look at the
quality of the releases that have happened since this policy was
changed, it's pretty clear
On 08/03/2011 10:14 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 03:53 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
We should instead focus on getting stuff out to stable faster. In
particular, why not allow direct stable pushes (without any karma) for
branched-but-unreleased versions?
Could you please
Adam Williamson wrote:
You don't make any attempt to engage with the reason for it: to ensure
that updates get sufficient testing.
I kinda did, with the next paragraph (which you are quick to dismiss as off
topic). :-)
People will test the stuff when it's marked stable, and that way they
On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 05:10 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
You don't make any attempt to engage with the reason for it: to ensure
that updates get sufficient testing.
I kinda did, with the next paragraph (which you are quick to dismiss as off
topic). :-)
People will
On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 22:17 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
4. Updates-testing being enabled by default means that people installing an
Alpha or Beta immediately get fed tons of 0-day (actually negative-day)
updates, because the Alpha or Beta does not include those testing updates
by
Kalev Lember wrote:
Bumping epoch in rpm would have made it harder for all other packages to
depend on a particular rpm version. Instead of having e.g.
Requires: rpm = 4.9.1, they would now also have to remember the put the
correct epoch in there.
Indeed, Epoch should be used only as a last
On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 03:53 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Enabling updates-testing by default for Branched was a very stupid
decision.
This should be reverted. updates-testing should NEVER be enabled by
default.
We should instead focus on getting stuff out to stable faster. In
particular,
On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 03:53 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Also, we have a much worse case of versions going backwards. After each
Alpha release, lots of people are going to install Branched pre-releases
and they automatically get enabled updates-testing repos. And in that
updates-testing
On 07/27/2011 09:39 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 09:19:08 -0700, JK (Jesse) wrote:
On 7/27/11 2:03 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
There is a big difference between a package going backwards in its EVR
and staying there and a package getting untagged because it breaks koji
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 02:29:23 +0300, KL (Kalev) wrote:
Bumping epoch in rpm would have made it harder for all other packages to
depend on a particular rpm version. Instead of having e.g.
Requires: rpm = 4.9.1, they would now also have to remember the put the
correct epoch in there.
Worth
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 18:51:12 -0700, AW (Adam) wrote:
On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 20:39 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Take off your pink glasses. Rawhide *is* a dumping ground. It breaks
users' installations regularly because of package maintainers using it
as exactly that, a dumping ground
On 07/28/2011 04:54 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 18:51:12 -0700, AW (Adam) wrote:
And how would we stop that? by...encouraging people not to use it as a
dumping ground. What's the best way to achieve that? Try and change the
perception of it as a dumping ground...
On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 09:19 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
On 7/27/11 2:03 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
In this case, the bad rpm-build broke koji builds, and since Rawhide
may eat babies, it can happen that Rawhide users need downgrade manually
while they have to wait for the fixed rpm-build.
On 7/28/11 8:41 AM, James Antill wrote:
Sisyphean task ... IMO.
So was moving us off of CVS. *shrug*
There are multiple ways to throw
baby-eating updates over the wall for testing before they get into
rawhide. Stop treating it like a dumping ground.
But at some point you have
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 11:41:47AM -0400, James Antill wrote:
On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 09:19 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
On 7/27/11 2:03 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
In this case, the bad rpm-build broke koji builds, and since Rawhide
may eat babies, it can happen that Rawhide users need
On Tuesday, July 26, 2011 03:24:58 PM Jesse Keating wrote:
On 7/26/11 1:14 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Yes, It got untagged. See last week's thread on this list:
Subject: rpm builds failing with Installed (but unpackaged) file(s)
found
I thought there was a hard rule about not having
On 07/28/2011 08:48 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
On Tuesday, July 26, 2011 03:24:58 PM Jesse Keating wrote:
I thought there was a hard rule about not having nvrs go backwards, and
if a bad build was put out, it should be fixed with epoch or other such
NVR things to make sure the upgrade path
On Fri, 2011-07-29 at 02:29 +0300, Kalev Lember wrote:
On 07/28/2011 08:48 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
On Tuesday, July 26, 2011 03:24:58 PM Jesse Keating wrote:
I thought there was a hard rule about not having nvrs go backwards, and
if a bad build was put out, it should be fixed with epoch
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 09:19:08 -0700, JK (Jesse) wrote:
On 7/27/11 2:03 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
There is a big difference between a package going backwards in its EVR
and staying there and a package getting untagged because it breaks koji
buildroot and with the plan to go forward in EVR
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 09:19:08 -0700, JK (Jesse) wrote:
On 7/27/11 2:03 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
There is a big difference between a package going backwards in its EVR
and staying there and a package getting
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 20:46:25 +0200,
drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
The proper fix would have been to just use epoch. People can call them
evil all they want they are perfectly suitable for that kind of
problems.
Or just rebuild the old version again. (Which should work unless
On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 20:39 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Take off your pink glasses. Rawhide *is* a dumping ground. It breaks
users' installations regularly because of package maintainers using it
as exactly that, a dumping ground for potentially untested builds.
And how would we stop that?
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 14:42:09 -0700, TK (Toshio) wrote:
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 01:24:58PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
On 7/26/11 1:14 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Yes, It got untagged. See last week's thread on this list:
Subject: rpm builds failing with Installed (but unpackaged) file(s)
On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 11:03 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 14:42:09 -0700, TK (Toshio) wrote:
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 01:24:58PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
On 7/26/11 1:14 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Yes, It got untagged. See last week's thread on this list:
I just did a package-cleanup --orphans on my Rawhide machine to see
which of the just-blocked packages are installed there. To my
surprise, I got this:
# package-cleanup --orphans
Loaded plugins: auto-update-debuginfo, langpacks, presto, refresh-packagekit
[snip stuff that I need to take care
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 13:59:51 -0600, JJ (Jerry) wrote:
I just did a package-cleanup --orphans on my Rawhide machine to see
which of the just-blocked packages are installed there. To my
surprise, I got this:
# package-cleanup --orphans
Loaded plugins: auto-update-debuginfo, langpacks,
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, It got untagged. See last week's thread on this list:
Subject: rpm builds failing with Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found
Thanks for the replies, Tomas and Michael. I somehow missed the part
where I needed
On 7/26/11 1:14 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Yes, It got untagged. See last week's thread on this list:
Subject: rpm builds failing with Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found
I thought there was a hard rule about not having nvrs go backwards, and
if a bad build was put out, it should be
On Tue, 2011-07-26 at 13:24 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
On 7/26/11 1:14 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Yes, It got untagged. See last week's thread on this list:
Subject: rpm builds failing with Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found
I thought there was a hard rule about not having nvrs go
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 01:24:58PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
On 7/26/11 1:14 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Yes, It got untagged. See last week's thread on this list:
Subject: rpm builds failing with Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found
I thought there was a hard rule about not having
31 matches
Mail list logo
