On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 06:40:44 -0400 (EDT) Kamil Paral <kpa...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > depcheck
> > 363 runs ( 167 GOOD, 196 ERROR )
> > - 84 fc17 runs ( 84 GOOD, 0 ERROR )
> > - 151 fc18 runs ( 75 GOOD, 76 ERROR )
> > - 128 fc19 runs ( 8 GOOD, 120 ERROR )
> >
> > repoclosure
> > 48 runs ( 27 GOOD, 21 ERROR )
> > - 7 fc17 runs ( 7 GOOD, 0 ERROR )
> > - 20 fc18 runs ( 20 GOOD, 0 ERROR )
> > - 21 fc19 runs ( 0 GOOD, 21 ERROR )
>
> Thanks, Tim, for collecting these numbers. It seems we should avoid
> F19 test clients for the moment.
That's a good point, with how easy it is to create clients right now,
we could rebuild with just F18 clients until some of these issues are
fixed.
> As for the repoclosure bug, I
> already responded to its ticket (i.e. not worth the invested time, I
> think).
> Depcheck problem... ugh. Anyone wants to consult this with
> yum developers? Last time I talked to them, there were surprised how
> hackish the whole concept was ("faking all packages to be installed
> at the same time, even conflicting ones? really? that can't work").
> Or is this the time to write simple_depcheck? :-)
It feels like it could be rather simple, but I have about 10%
confidence that it actually would be simple - it's been a while since
I've dug into that code and who knows how long it would actually take.
j_dulaney/handsome_pirate has been talking about a new depcheck, but he
hasn't been able to upload code for it yet. Either way, I'm all for
killing off depcheck as is :)
Tim
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ qa-devel mailing list qa-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/qa-devel
