[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Making updates-testing more useful

On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 17:30 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 12.12.2008 10:55, Richard Hughes wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 07:06 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> >> On 11.12.2008 19:28, Richard Hughes wrote:
> >>> Yes, we can easily enable the testing repos with a small button and a
> >>> more info link. The real question is, will this clutter the UI and
> >>> confuse new users?
> >> Another good question (related to the "will this confuse new users" 
> >> part): Will you enable the updates-testing repos from 3rd party repos in 
> >> the same step automatically?
> > 
> > Yes.
> Great!
> > If the user has fedora and rpmfusion enabled, but livna disabled,
> Just to me sure: I assume you meant both rpmfusion repos (free and 
> nonfree) when you wrote "rpmfusion"?

Whichever you have enabled. It's just a repo ID to PK.

> > it'll do in the first pass:
> > 
> > updates from all configured and enabled sources
> > 
> > and on the second pass:
> > 
> > disable fedora and rpmfusion
> Disable? Why disable any repos? What is a package from one of the 
> testing repos introduces a new dep that is only solved by a package in 
> fedora (stock repos) or fedora-updates?

Else you report some updates twice.

> > enable fedora-testing and rpmfusion-testing
> > updates from all configured and enabled sources
> > enable fedora and rpmfusion
> > disable fedora-testing and rpmfusion-testing
> > 
> > If you've got livna installed then it shouldn't touch the repo.
> The new livna repo (that users get that install the current release 
> package from the rlo front page) afaics has no testing area anymore, so 
> it afaics should not matter at all and not get touched (like you said)


> > The
> > tricky bit is the heuristic that matches up rpmfusion-testing to
> > rpmfusion.
> Maybe all that is needed it to enable all "*-testing" repos. Then it 
> would work even for other repos as well. But maybe that's to dangerous.

I think some people might get upset by that.

> >> But well, likely it doesn't matter to much anyway, as yum is still 
> >> pretty broken in such situations anyway, as mirror lags will confuse it:
> >> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-August/msg00041.html
> > We can't do much about mirror lags, but we do switch on --skip-broken by
> > default which sort of mitigates things.
> I'm not really sure of "skip-broken" in its current form really is the 
> best way to solve it, but maybe it's "good enough". Another subthread in 
> this discussion hopefully gets to a result.



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]