On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 12:36:13 +0200
Kevin Kofler <email@example.com> wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Again, you're extrapolating way too far from a single problem case.
> > The problem is simply that we have the xorg-x11-drivers metapackage
> > which requires every single X driver and is in the critpath.
> > There's various ways we could adjust this so it's no longer the
> > case. It's hardly something that renders an entire policy invalid.
> Another example for how the critical path policy breaks things:
> This update adds support for xfwm4 and openbox to the firstboot code.
> Updates for those 2 window managers:
> which add the virtual firstboot(windowmanager) Provides have already
> been pushed to stable! So now we have 2 WMs satisfying firstboot's
> dependencies, but not actually supported by its code. The result: the
> Xfce and LXDE spins will be outright BROKEN. (And it's not my fault,
> I only did the firstboot build and update requests, the other 2
> packages were pushed by cwickert.)
Xfce at least will not be.
I have not been able to do an install and test firstboot here yet, but
I can over the weekend. The Xfce update does not much in the end
though, so I don't think it's at all urgent.
> I CANNOT push the firstboot update which UNBREAKS those 2 spins
> because of the update policy. So instead of preventing breakage, the
> policy CAUSES breakage! How can it fail more spectacularly for you to
> finally realize it's a failure?
Is there any way you could try to not be such a negative ball of
energy? I suppose not.
> To all proventesters: please +1 that update, EVEN IF YOU HAVEN'T
> TESTED IT, we need to get out of this impasse!
Please test the updates properly and add karma when you have.
devel mailing list