Interesting... thanks Adam... but the way I read that is specifically tailored to "release criteria", not design/implementation guidelines - i.e. to me this says, don't hold up a release because someone screwed up and didn't conditionalize the process correctly.
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 9:38 AM, Adam Williamson <adamw...@fedoraproject.org > wrote: > On Thu, 2018-06-21 at 12:08 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 12:03 PM Gerald B. Cox <gb...@bzb.us> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 6:39 AM, Stephen Gallagher < > sgall...@redhat.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe we're missing something fundamental here. If a > > > > > program/service etc. requires specific hardware to work > > > > > and it can't gracefully handle situations where that hardware is > not > > > > > present - it shouldn't be a default. > > > > > > > > > > The way to handle this (and other similar situations) is to take > away > > > > > the default status until it can handle > > > > > situations where the hardware doesn't exist. This is systems > > > > > programming 101 - and frankly I am a > > > > > bit surprised it's a matter of debate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No one on this list is disagreeing that the defaults should not > degrade > > > > the system. I *do* think that your response is an overreaction: just > > > > because software may have bugs on your hardware doesn't mean that it > should > > > > be turned off entirely. If it's causing problems for a small subset > of > > > > users, they can be manually disabled. > > > > > > > > These services provide CONSIDERABLE benefit on the hardware that > supports > > > > it. Removing that as a default for those systems would be a > significant > > > > regression. That's not an acceptable solution. > > > > > > > > Most of the people on this thread seem to agree: we can > conditionalize > > > > the defaults so it is either skipped or at least does not mark the > service > > > > as "failed" if the necessary hardware is not present. People are > already > > > > working on doing this. > > > > > > > > > > Stephen, I'm not disputing the benefit - and I very much appreciate the > > > fact that people are working to conditionalize the defaults. What I do > > > disagree with is your characterization that this is a bug. > > > It is working as it was designed - and the design is faulty - and it's > > > pervasive. I've encountered THREE different processes that aren't > properly > > > conditionalized. That's definitely not a bug - that's a systemic > issue. > > > Yes, AMD processors are not as popular as Intel, but they do exist in > > > considerable numbers and most definitely should be > > > considered when things are implemented as defaults; additionally... > > > obviously... not everybody uses SecureBoot. > > > My comment regarding taking away default status was in regards to this > > > lingering for years. > > > I personally don't believe that is acceptable. If one can't figure out > > > how to fix things like this in a timely manner, then there is a > problem. > > > > > > > > > > Well, there was also a failure of escalation path here. If this was going > > on for years without a resolution, why wasn't it raised on this list or > to > > FESCo a long time ago? Individual maintainers have their own priorities > and > > time constraints and don't always address every bug that comes their way. > > > > However, had it risen up the chain, it's possible a group like FESCo > might > > take note and set down some rules/requirements. As it is, I think it's > > probably time right now to move this to a FESCo ticket and see what we > can > > do about it. Gerald, if you feel strongly about this issue, please file > it. > > Note we already have a release criterion related to this: > > "All system services present after installation with one of the > release-blocking package sets must start properly, unless they require > hardware which is not present." > > That lets out the rngd and Intel vs. AMD cases, I guess - it is > specifically written to do so, after we decided once that we didn't > want to block the release on the rngd case or one like it - but it > would cover the Secure Boot case at least. > -- > Adam Williamson > Fedora QA Community Monkey > IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net > http://www.happyassassin.net > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists. > fedoraproject.org/message/PCKI2JZ54TWHRMFTQAIQP333K5W7MPUQ/ >
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/6VKMRRXT4EBPJE3UKFJF4N6EBRC5OFDN/
