> > Having this implemented manually would be great. In the future I'd
> > like to replace it with automatic process managed by AutoQA. AutoQA
> > would say Bodhi "this update can be only pushed together with this
> > other update, because the first one depends on the second one". The
> > maintaine
On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 05:39 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote:
> > So I really see two options for improving these situations:
> > 1) https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/663 I opened this ticket two
> > months ago (to silence). The idea would be to add the ability for
> > bodhi
> > updates to mark other u
On 03/26/2012 09:53 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
As requested during the FESCo meeting, I am going to try to summarize
some of the issues inherent in the way that Bodhi updates currently
work.
First, I'll try to explain the goals and constraints:
1) The stable 'fedora-updates' yum repository sh
> So I really see two options for improving these situations:
> 1) https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/663 I opened this ticket two
> months ago (to silence). The idea would be to add the ability for
> bodhi
> updates to mark other updates as a dependency, so that in the example
> above, Firefox
Adam Williamson wrote:
> I think we'd need to make the second more optional than you suggest,
> though. For instance, when the desktop team pushes a 'GNOME 3.4' update
> with 30 packages in it, they really want that update to be tested as a
> whole - broadly they just want people to install all the
On Mon, 2012-03-26 at 15:53 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> So I really see two options for improving these situations:
> 1) https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/663 I opened this ticket two
> months ago (to silence). The idea would be to add the ability for bodhi
> updates to mark other update
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 26.03.2012 21:53, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> So now we have our first updates dependency issue. If we submit
> libtevent as its own update, it is possible that it will achieve its
> karma requirement before libtalloc does. It would then be pushed
Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> 2) We could continue on the "single update for multiple packages"
> approach, but revamp the karma system so that each SRPM gets its own
> karma, rather than the update as a whole. Then, the whole update would
> not be pushed via autokarma until all of the dependent packa
As requested during the FESCo meeting, I am going to try to summarize
some of the issues inherent in the way that Bodhi updates currently
work.
First, I'll try to explain the goals and constraints:
1) The stable 'fedora-updates' yum repository should NEVER exist in a
state where any package has d
