FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 07-19-2008, 12:56 PM
Nicolas Mailhot
 
Default Another xulrunner breakage

Le samedi 19 juillet 2008 à 14:05 +0200, Martin Sourada a écrit :

> Next, there should be some policy in pushing such updates for stable
> releases. I mean, what is the point in releasing security update for
> xulrunner while it cannot be installed due to tons of broken deps?

Also, why the hell is this stuff not tested in -devel first?
We have a packageset which is rushed to stable with little testing.
And we have a packageset which is left rotting in rawhide till the
release deadlines toll.

Do anyone really thinks there is not relation?

When the update process is not streamlined in -devel, it's no surprise
it bombs in -stable when security updates are due.

--
Nicolas Mailhot
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 07-19-2008, 01:31 PM
drago01
 
Default Another xulrunner breakage

2008/7/19 Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>:
> Le samedi 19 juillet 2008 à 14:05 +0200, Martin Sourada a écrit :
>
>> Next, there should be some policy in pushing such updates for stable
>> releases. I mean, what is the point in releasing security update for
>> xulrunner while it cannot be installed due to tons of broken deps?
>
> Also, why the hell is this stuff not tested in -devel first?

Because it was secutity related fix, so it has to hit stable asap.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 07-19-2008, 01:49 PM
"David Nielsen"
 
Default Another xulrunner breakage

2008/7/19 drago01 <drago01@gmail.com>:

2008/7/19 Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>:

> Le samedi 19 juillet 2008 à 14:05 +0200, Martin Sourada a écrit :

>

>> Next, there should be some policy in pushing such updates for stable

>> releases. I mean, what is the point in releasing security update for

>> xulrunner while it cannot be installed due to tons of broken deps?

>

> Also, why the hell is this stuff not tested in -devel first?



Because it was secutity related fix, so it has to hit stable asap.


The obvious problem with this approach is naturally that people like myself who have epiphany installed, will not get the update asap because it is rushed into the repos without properly handling the dependencies. The rapid update policy for security fixes should apply equally to all users.


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 07-19-2008, 01:52 PM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default Another xulrunner breakage

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 15:31:11 +0200, drago01 wrote:

> > Le samedi 19 juillet 2008 à 14:05 +0200, Martin Sourada a écrit :
> >
> >> Next, there should be some policy in pushing such updates for stable
> >> releases. I mean, what is the point in releasing security update for
> >> xulrunner while it cannot be installed due to tons of broken deps?
> >
> > Also, why the hell is this stuff not tested in -devel first?
>
> Because it was secutity related fix, so it has to hit stable asap.

Doesn't matter. It doesn't install at all if it breaks dependencies
of *installed* packages. Not even --skip-broken helps in that case.
As you can see in bodhi, it has hit several testers quickly.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 07-19-2008, 02:45 PM
drago01
 
Default Another xulrunner breakage

On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 3:52 PM, Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 15:31:11 +0200, drago01 wrote:
>
>> > Le samedi 19 juillet 2008 à 14:05 +0200, Martin Sourada a écrit :
>> >
>> >> Next, there should be some policy in pushing such updates for stable
>> >> releases. I mean, what is the point in releasing security update for
>> >> xulrunner while it cannot be installed due to tons of broken deps?
>> >
>> > Also, why the hell is this stuff not tested in -devel first?
>>
>> Because it was secutity related fix, so it has to hit stable asap.
>
> Doesn't matter. It doesn't install at all if it breaks dependencies
> of *installed* packages. Not even --skip-broken helps in that case.
> As you can see in bodhi, it has hit several testers quickly.

I just said why it was done, not that it was the right thing to do.
As I already said, bodhi should block updates that break deps.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 07-19-2008, 10:56 PM
"Oscar Victorio Calixto Bacho"
 
Default Another xulrunner breakage

>> > Also, why the hell is this stuff not tested in -devel first?
*+1000

**
>> Because it was secutity related fix, so it has to hit stable* asap.
**
>**
> Doesn't matter. It doesn't install at all if it breaks dependencies


> of *installed* packages. Not even --skip-broken helps in that case.
*+1000

*This never* shouldn't* happen, stable != rawhide

Oscar Bacho


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 04:21 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org