Bug 1437299
| Summary: | 26 Alpha RC7 Server DVD has repoclosure errors | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Adam Williamson <awilliam> |
| Component: | distribution | Assignee: | Václav Pavlín <vpavlin> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | 26 | CC: | dennis, kevin, mruckman, robatino |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | x86_64 | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | RejectedBlocker | ||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2017-04-04 19:33:59 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
We *really* ought to automate running the repoclosure, fileconflicts and sizecheck tests... Because of how dnf works, I'd be fine with letting this into Alpha - however, we really should discuss a criteria change. -1 blocker for Alpha. repoclosure is ran every compose Ah, yeah, I guess the Server install repo repoclosure test is close enough to the contents of the DVD. But there is nothing in place to report the result to the wiki. Discussed at 2017-03-30 Fedora 26 Alpha Go/No-Go Meeting #2, acting as a blocker review meeting: https://meetbot-raw.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2017-03-30/f26-alpha-go-no-go-meeting-3rd.2017-03-30-17.00.txt . We agreed that it no longer makes sense for this to be part of the Alpha criteria given the current behaviour of anaconda and dnf, and consequently this was rejected as an Alpha blocker. Criteria amendment proposals will follow shortly to test@. Also closing, as this particular repoclosure issue was resolved in the post-Alpha stable push, by https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-6f4667ac4d . |
Num Packages in Repos: 2830 package: abrt-plugin-bodhi-2.10.0-4.fc26.x86_64 from myrepo unresolved deps: libhawkey.so.2()(64bit) package: python-smbios-2.3.0-4.fc26.x86_64 from myrepo unresolved deps: python-ctypes This is a violation of the Alpha criteria: "There must be no errors in any package on the release-blocking images which cause the package to fail to install." https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_26_Alpha_Release_Criteria#No_broken_packages So nominating as an Alpha blocker. However, I'm inclined to suggest we should change that criterion. It was written back when the anaconda interface made it possible to select individual packages for installation. It hasn't allowed that for a long time now. Also, current dnf behaviour when a package in a group can't be installed is to just omit it, but install all other packages from the group. We're not very happy with this behaviour for other reasons, but it *is* how dnf behaves right now. That means even if you select a package group containing one of the affected packages for install, your install will succeed, it'll just be missing the affect package(s). Given those considerations I'm not sure it makes sense to block Alpha on this kind of problem any more. But let's discuss it.